Military Review

Anti-aircraft weapons of Soviet battleships

169

This material is devoted to the evolution of air defense of Soviet battleships during the period from World War I to the beginning of World War II. Unfortunately, in the sources devoted to these ships, this issue is considered rather superficially and contains a number of inaccuracies. However, thanks to the brilliant work of the respected A. V. Tameev, “Identification of battleships of the Sevastopol type, the author of this article has the opportunity to significantly refine the materials that he posted on VO earlier.


Initially, the artillery weapons of the first Russian dreadnoughts were to include, in addition to the 305 mm main and 120 mm anti-mine calibers, also eight 75-mm guns and four 47-mm guns. But none of these gun mounts was anti-aircraft: 75-mm artillery, which was planned to be deployed in pairs on 4 main-caliber towers, was training, and 47-mm cannons on the nose superstructure were salute. At the same time, the training tools were abandoned during the construction process, they managed to be installed only at Sevastopol, and they were removed from it even before the construction was completed. As for the 47-mm “salute”, the battleships, upon entry into service, carried 4 such artillery systems, but in the winter of 1915/16. 2 such guns were removed from each ship, and in the second half of 1916 they lost the rest. The only exception was the battleship Sevastopol, where a pair of salute cannons remained until the beginning of 1918.

Anti-aircraft artillery during the First World War


I must say that equipping the Baltic dreadnought with air defense systems was quite chaotic: they put it on, removed it, and then put it back on. In total there were 3 points of installation of anti-aircraft guns: the 1st and 4th tower, as well as the feed behind the 4th tower.

"Gangut." In November 1915, a 75-mm Obukhov gun was mounted on its stern on the Meller machine. However, a year later, at the end of 1916, it was withdrawn. In the period from the summer of 1916 until the beginning of 1917, the bow tower of the main caliber (GK) was "decorated" with the Maxim anti-aircraft machine gun, but then, for unclear reasons, it was also removed. For almost a year the tower remained “bare”, and only at the end of 1917 a 63,5 mm anti-aircraft gun was installed on it. And only on the 4th tower of the GK anti-aircraft weapons "took root": there at the end of 1915 a 63,5 mm anti-aircraft gun was installed, and in May 1916 a second one was installed there, placing them diagonally, and even a small rangefinder (3,5 feet).

Sevastopol. The only ship that during the entire war did not receive a single anti-aircraft gun in the stern. His first anti-aircraft gun was a 47-mm gun, installed in the winter of 1915/16. to the 4th tower of the Civil Code, but in 1916 it was removed from there. Since the end of 1916, the 4th tower received two 76,2-mm Lender guns placed diagonally, and from the beginning of 1917, another such gun was installed on the first tower of the Civil Code.

"Petropavlovsk". In the winter of 1915, together with Sevastopol, he received a 4-mm anti-aircraft gun on the 47th tower of the Civil Code. But in the summer of 1916, she replaced the balls with two 63,5-mm anti-aircraft guns, located side by side, and a 3,5-foot range finder. Another 63,5-mm gun at the end of 1917 was located on the 1st tower of the Civil Code. But at the stern of the ship anti-aircraft weapons somehow "did not take root." In the spring of 1916, he received a 40-mm Vickers assault rifle, which, for unclear reasons, was removed from there in the summer of that year. Instead, they installed the Maxim machine gun on an anti-aircraft machine gun (possibly not one), but at the beginning of 1917 they removed it (them).

"Poltava". Like Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk, anti-aircraft weapons of the battleship “began” with the installation of a 47-mm gun on the 4th tower of the Civil Code. At the end of 1916, it was replaced by two 76,2 mm Lender guns. In addition, the battleship received either one or several anti-aircraft “Maxims” in the stern, where he (or they) stayed between the summer of 1916 and the beginning of 1917, and then, at the end of 1917, another 76,2, The Lender 1-mm cannon was installed on the XNUMXst turret of the Civil Code.

Thus, by the October Revolution (an event, not a battleship), the anti-aircraft weapons of all four Baltic battleships were represented by 3 anti-aircraft guns, of which one was located on the 1st tower of the Civil Code, and two on the 4th tower of the Civil Code. The only difference was that the Sevastopol and Poltava had 76,2 mm Lender anti-aircraft guns, and the Gangut and Petropavlovsk had 63,5 mm anti-aircraft guns.

The period from 1918 until the first modernization of battleships


The Gangut, aka the October Revolution and Poltava, aka Mikhail Frunze, lost all their anti-aircraft artillery in 1918-1919. in connection with the statement for long-term storage.

"Petropavlovsk", also known as "Marat", in 1923 lost one 63,5-mm anti-aircraft gun on the bow tower of the Civil Code. The bow tower of "Sevastopol" (aka "Paris Commune"), in 1924 also left the Lender 76,2-mm anti-aircraft gun, but at the end of the next, 1925, returned and even “brought a girlfriend”. Thus, by the beginning of the modernization of battleships on the “October Revolution” there was no anti-aircraft artillery at all, on the Marat there were only two 63,5-mm guns on the 4th tower, but the “Paris Commune” had two 76,2- mm anti-aircraft guns on the 1st and 2nd towers of the Civil Code.

Air Defense Unification


During its first modernization, that is, from the winter of 1923, for Marat, from the summer of 1926 to the October Revolution, and from the winter of 1926/27. for the "Paris Commune", all three battleships of the young Soviet fleet received unified anti-aircraft weapons, consisting of 6 * 76,2 mm Lender guns, placed 3 in each on the 1st and 4th towers of the Civil Code. In the future, our sailors also sought to ensure that the air defense of all three Soviet battleships was identical, but nevertheless, there was always a slight difference before the war.

Pre-war modernization


In the 30s of the twentieth century, the anti-aircraft weapons of the three battleships underwent successive changes. According to the respected A. V. Tameev, “Marat” during the modernization of 1928/31. and the “October Revolution” during the 3rd stage of modernization in 1933/34. In addition to six Lender anti-aircraft guns, they received 4 more 37-mm guns. They were placed in pairs on the bow and stern superstructures. But what kind of machines were they? Of course, we are not talking about the 70-K installations, which appeared in the Soviet fleet much later. A.V. Tameyev mentions that these were 37-mm Vickers submachine guns, but here ambiguity arises.

The fact is that the Soviet sailors had at their disposal 40-mm Vickers assault rifles (“pom-pom”), but they obviously differ in caliber. There were also 37-mm Maxim submachine guns that were produced in World War I and which were subsequently produced in small batches after the revolution. Perhaps there was still a certain number of 37 mm Macklen's assault rifles that the Russian Empire acquired during the First World War, but it is completely doubtful that they would be put on battleships during the modernization of the 30s. Finally, there was still an attempt to create a “37 mm automatic gun mod. 1928 ", which was a somewhat improved" pom-pom ", but, as far as the author knows, it was not accepted for service and was not mass-produced.

Thus, it can be assumed that the Marat and the October Revolution received either the classic 40-mm Vickers “pom-poms” or the 37-mm Maxim submachine guns made by the Obukhov factory. And it should be said that the anti-aircraft weapons of these two battleships turned out to be identical in terms of the quantity of anti-aircraft artillery (but perhaps not in the quality of fire control).

However, not for long. In 1937, the Marat lost its 37-mm machine guns, which were replaced by six Maxim four machine guns, each mounted 3 on the bow and stern superstructures.


And here is the “October Revolution” in 1936/37. also "got rid" of Vickers submachine guns, receiving in return four 45-mm 21-Ks, which were located in pairs on the bow and stern superstructures. Later, on each add-in they added another quad "Maxim". Then, four 45-mm 21-K semi-automatic guns were removed, replacing them with the same number of Maxims, and by the winter of 1939/40. anti-aircraft weapons of the "October Revolution" and "Marat" again became identical. It included 6 * 76,2-mm Lender anti-aircraft guns and 6 quadruple machine guns "Maxim".

As for the battleship "Paris Commune", its anti-aircraft weapons in the pre-war period was completely different. This ship was modernized later and at the first stage of work carried out in the period 1933/38, received, perhaps, more serious air defense than the "October Revolution" and "Marat" combined. Three 76,2-mm 34-K anti-aircraft guns were installed on the bow and stern superstructures of the “Paris Commune”, and instead of Lender anti-aircraft guns, six 45-mm 21-K guns were installed on the towers.

Final touches before the war


Apparently, the largest number of anti-aircraft "barrels" at the beginning of World War II received "Marat". In 1939/40 the battleship finally replaced the completely archaic by that time 76,2-mm Lender anti-aircraft guns with the same number 34-K. During the last pre-war modernization (from the winter of 1939/40 to February 1941), the ship lost all the Maxims, but acquired another 2 * 76,2 mm 34-K anti-aircraft guns at the stern, and 3 * 37 each -mm submachine gun 70-K on the bow and stern superstructures. In addition, Marat received 2 DShK machine guns on the aft superstructure, the same number on the aft pipe bridge (instead of searchlights), six DShK on the bow superstructure and 3 more DShK on the bow mast platforms. Accordingly, we can say that the Marat met the war with 8 * 76,2 mm 34-K guns, 6 * 37 mm 70-K assault rifles and 13 DShK machine guns.

The October Revolution takes an honorable second place. Its anti-aircraft weapons were similar to the "Marat" and differed only in the number and location of DShK machine guns: six barrels on the bow and stern superstructures. Thus, by the beginning of the war, the anti-aircraft weapons of Oktyabrina amounted to 8 * 76,2 mm 34-K, 6 * 37 mm 70-K and 12 DShK machine guns.

Anti-aircraft weapons of Soviet battleships

But the “Paris Commune”, alas, “moved out” to third place. In 1940, the ship received 12 DShK machine guns located as follows: 4 on the bow superstructure, 6 on the stern and 2 on the main mast site. And in April 1941, the 45-mm semi-automatic 21-K were replaced by 6 37-mm 70-K submachine guns, each placed 3 on the 1st and 4th main-caliber towers. Thus, at the beginning of the war, the air defense of the “Paris Commune” provided 6 * 76,2 mm 34-K guns, 6 * 37 mm machine guns and 12 DShK machine guns. It was also planned to install two anti-aircraft guns, “three-inch” 34-K at the stern of the ship, but did not have time to do this, although the guns were made. However, in fairness, we note that the "Paris Commune" quickly "rehabilitated", because at the very beginning of the war, in August 1941, received an additional three 37-mm 70-K submachine guns on the roofs of the 2nd and 3rd towers main caliber, which brought him to the undisputed leaders in comparison with the rest of the dreadnought.

Of course, during the war, the air defense of Soviet battleships was repeatedly modernized, but consideration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article.

Air Defense Fire Control Systems


Unfortunately, there is too much obscurity with them to make any conclusions, since the possibilities and quality of these SLAs are unknown. Moreover, it can be assumed that the anti-aircraft fire of the "October Revolution" and "Marat" was generally carried out through the modernized "Geisler and Co." But, in any case, all three battleships of the USSR received a sufficient number of anti-aircraft rangefinders. So, for example, the “October Revolution” at the beginning of the war had two 3-meter range finders, located on the fore and main masts, to control the bow and stern groups of 76,2 mm guns. The fire of the 37 mm assault rifles was provided by two rangefinders with a base of 1,5 meters, located on the bow and stern superstructure, respectively. Marat had the same number of rangefinders, but on the Paris Commune in 1940 both three-meter rangefinders were removed and 4 posts were installed instead of them equipped with Som anti-aircraft fire control devices.

Comparison with foreign "colleagues"


Of course, the state of air defense of the Soviet battleships as of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War left much to be desired. But, on the other hand, it was not so bad as it might seem at first glance. Moreover, strangely enough, this will sound, but in terms of quantity and quality of anti-aircraft artillery systems “October Revolution”, “Marat” and “Paris Commune” were not much inferior to the modernized battleships of the leading naval powers.

Consider, for example, the "big five" of the United States.


The Maryland, West Virginia, and Colorado, which entered service after the First World War, carried 8 * 406-mm guns of the main caliber, and the previous Tennessee and California - a dozen 356-mm guns in new towers (and finally in separate cradles, in contrast to the "356-mm" battleships of the previous types). These ships in 1941 were the basis of the linear fleet of the United States of America. Newer ships of the North Caroline type, although they were faster and stronger, did not enter service only in April-May 1941 and had not yet reached full combat efficiency.

So, from the battleships of the "Big Five" by the time the US entered the war, that is, by December 1941, the best anti-aircraft weaponry was Maryland. Its base was made up of 8 * 127-mm guns. But these were by no means the ones that later became famous for the 127 mm / 38 artillery system, which many historians (and the author of this article after them) consider to be the best medium-caliber sea anti-aircraft guns from the Second World War, but only 127 mm / 25 guns .


In addition to them, Maryland also had 4 * 4 installations of 28-mm anti-aircraft guns and 8 * 12,7-mm machine guns.

Well, if you compare Maryland with the Paris Commune, which at that time had 6 * 76,2 mm 34-K, 12 * 37 mm 70-K machine guns and 12 * 12,7 mm machine guns, then you don’t even immediately realize who should be preferred here. Of course, the average anti-aircraft caliber of the American battleship is more powerful, but the 28-mm “Chicago pianos” have proven themselves not in the best way and are clearly losing to a dozen domestic 37-mm submachine guns. And the “Paris Commune” machine guns are one and a half times more than the “Maryland” machine guns.

Other American battleships had even weaker air defense. The Colorado has not yet completed the modernization, and the remaining three ships of the Big Five had 8 * 127 mm / 25 and 4 * 76 mm, and 8 (Tennessee), 9 (Pennsylvania) and 11 West Virginia »12,7 mm machine guns. It turns out that their average caliber anti-aircraft artillery was superior to that of the "Marat" and the "October Revolution", but there were no quick-fire guns at all, and there were more machine guns on Soviet battleships.

Thus, we see that in the part of the "trunks" of anti-aircraft artillery, domestic battleships were quite at the level of the best American battleships, excluding ships of the latest construction. If we recall the French dreadnought type "Brittany", then they with their 8 * 75 mm guns 4 * 37 mm machine guns and two quad machine gun installations lost to Soviet battleships.

Of course, there were “capital” ships, which in terms of air defense were decisively superior to the three battleships of the USSR. For example, you can recall the British "Queen Elizabeth", with its 20 barrels of excellent 114-mm anti-aircraft guns, 4 * 8 "guns" and 4 * 4 12,7-mm machine guns.


The flagship battleship of the famous British admiral E. Cunningham “Worthspite” had 4 paired 102-mm anti-aircraft guns, 4 eight-barreled 40-mm “pom-pom” installations and 11 * 20-mm “Erlikonov”. Excellence is not so significant, but still quite tangible. Nevertheless, it is worth recognizing that in terms of air defense the “October Revolution”, “Marat” and the “Paris Commune” could well be considered “strong middle peasants” among the leading naval powers that survived until 1941 of the dreadnoughts of the First World War.

Obviously, the Soviet battleships could not withstand the massive attacks of professional naval pilots using the most effective tactics and equipped with modern military equipment at that time - such as, for example, pilots of the Japanese deck aviation. But, taking into account the real combat qualities of the Luftwaffe regarding the war at sea, it can be assumed that the Soviet battleships had quite acceptable air defense at the beginning of the war. And subject to the availability of experienced commanders and trained crews, the October Revolution, Marat, and the Paris Commune could well carry out various naval operations without being exposed to excessive risk of serious damage from enemy aircraft.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Soviet battleships between wars
Battleships type "Marat". Modernization of the main caliber
Modernization of Soviet battleships: anti-mine caliber and torpedoes
From 75-Kane to 34-K, or Evolution of anti-aircraft artillery between Soviet battleships
About the puzzles of the PUAZO Soviet battleships and the "small-caliber misunderstanding" 21-K
Small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery of the Soviet battleships. 70-K
169 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 26 June 2020 18: 22 New
    +5
    And subject to the availability of experienced commanders and trained crews, the October Revolution, Marat, and the Paris Commune could well carry out various naval operations without being exposed to excessive risk of serious damage from enemy aircraft.

    Nevertheless, the Germans managed to inflict severe damage on the "Marat" right in the base. And in the open sea they would just drown him.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 26 June 2020 19: 08 New
      10
      And in the open sea they would just drown him.

      Of course, if he was anchored, as in the base.
      1. Looking for
        Looking for 27 June 2020 14: 55 New
        0
        “Prince of Wales” and “Ripals.” “Yamato” AND TENS !!! of other large ships certainly does not count?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 June 2020 20: 25 New
      23
      Wrong. Marat stood in the sea channel, where there was no strong air defense cover and where he was subjected not only to raids, but also to shelling field artillery. And only when half of the 76.2 mm and 37 mm machine guns were knocked out of him did he leave for Kronstadt. And there he was bathed for quite some time before being destroyed.
      At sea, it would have been much easier for him - to eat in a moving ship is much more difficult.
      1. Sergey M. Karasev
        Sergey M. Karasev 27 June 2020 05: 42 New
        0
        But in Kronstadt he was also covered by ground anti-aircraft artillery, and in the sea he could only rely on his own. So there is a double edged sword.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          27 June 2020 15: 39 New
          +4
          Quote: Sergey Karasev
          But in Kronstadt he was also covered by ground anti-aircraft artillery

          And at sea the artillery of warrant ships would cover. But in general - how much can you recall situations where ground-based air defense could cope with air raids? Moreover, the air defense of Leningrad in general and Kronstadt in particular did not differ in special density
          1. volodimer
            volodimer 28 June 2020 19: 37 New
            0
            I read the title and immediately realized who the author was. Had a break. hi
            Of course, having described Marat’s air defense, you have come up with Sergey’s question. But really, the question is: the air defense of Kronstadt covered Marat or the air defense of Marat was included in the air defense of Kronstadt.
            Are there any documents on this subject? Because, in the absence of a clear difference, this can explain a lot. If the purpose of coastal air defense was primarily to protect coastal facilities, then Marat fought back alone while anchoring, and if he also had to cover coastal facilities, this is to the detriment of himself with all the consequences. Most likely there was a third option.
            One thing is clear that the air defense base of the Baltic Fleet was not enough.
            And the help of an air defense warrant would hardly have helped against a competent attack by the same Japanese. But against the Germans, with the presence of more or less adequate fighter escort, this could be enough.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 29 June 2020 11: 01 New
              +3
              Quote: volodimer
              One thing is clear that the air defense base of the Baltic Fleet was not enough.

              I met data that the air defense of Kronstadt began to be built as a single system only after the September raids. Prior to this, the batteries fired independently, without a centralized control center (at least the batteries located on the forts).
    3. Alaric
      Alaric 2 July 2020 22: 17 New
      +1
      amendment. In the clear sea, "Marat" would drown. But in reality, German pilots somehow did not achieve much success by bombing ships in the Marquise puddle. It’s enough to look at Shirokorad’s diagram of the bombing of the battleship “October Revolution”. Most of the Germans turned off the battle course before dropping bombs. The battleship is not urban neighborhoods or refugees on the roads. The Luftwaffe was breaking off against protected targets.
      This is not even compared with the British, who managed to sink the Italian battleships with the old Swordfish biplanes.
  2. Demagogue
    Demagogue 26 June 2020 18: 47 New
    -6
    The title would be more accurate if it sounded like anti-aircraft weapons of the battleships of the Republic of Ingushetia during the service in the USSR.

    And yet bored without Zinovy ​​Petrovich and the world of his wise thoughts))
  3. NF68
    NF68 26 June 2020 18: 49 New
    +3
    The British and Americans also had aircraft carriers whose fighters could help their ships repel enemy aircraft. The Air Force of the USSR Navy did not have aircraft carriers. In addition, there were too few radio stations on airplanes of the Red Army Air Force as well as in the Air Force of the USSR Navy, which also did not improve the air defense of ships.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 June 2020 19: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: NF68
      The British and Americans also had aircraft carriers whose fighters could help their ships repel enemy aircraft.

      According to the pre-war notions of USN, the fighters of the AB air group were not even enough to cover the AB itself. It was believed that if an enemy air group went to AB, then he could be counted as a defeat. And the pre-war Fleet Problems confirmed this theory.
      In addition, 2 out of 3 ABs always went in isolation from the main forces - in front, on the flanks, conducting reconnaissance. So with the main forces was only 1 AB. 18 fighters.
      1. NF68
        NF68 30 June 2020 17: 41 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: NF68
        The British and Americans also had aircraft carriers whose fighters could help their ships repel enemy aircraft.

        According to the pre-war notions of USN, the fighters of the AB air group were not even enough to cover the AB itself. It was believed that if an enemy air group went to AB, then he could be counted as a defeat. And the pre-war Fleet Problems confirmed this theory.
        In addition, 2 out of 3 ABs always went in isolation from the main forces - in front, on the flanks, conducting reconnaissance. So with the main forces was only 1 AB. 18 fighters.


        Even in this case, it is better to have at least some number of carrier-based fighters at hand than not to have these ABs with fighters at all. When the Americans realized this, then they began to build a large number of aircraft carriers, after which the American carrier-based aircraft could already well cover their surface ships.
    2. Alf
      Alf 26 June 2020 19: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: NF68
      The British and Americans also had aircraft carriers whose fighters could help their ships repel enemy aircraft.

      Ripals and Prince did not help much.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 26 June 2020 19: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        Ripals and Prince did not help much.

        Did Compound Z include an aircraft carrier?
        1. volodimer
          volodimer 28 June 2020 20: 13 New
          0
          And this is an interesting "hypothetical" ... If the Angles had an aircraft carrier there? What they had at that time was from carrier-based aviation. The shock does not count, Swordfish, Fulmars ... the same victims as American TVD. Flycatcher fighters ... haha. Yes, and the Sycharricanes would not have saved.
          Perhaps the presence of an aircraft carrier in the formation would simply move the dubious date of the first destruction of an aircraft carrier by carrier-based aircraft to an earlier date (and it would still be HMS Hermes). And the result would be the same.
      2. NF68
        NF68 30 June 2020 17: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: NF68
        The British and Americans also had aircraft carriers whose fighters could help their ships repel enemy aircraft.

        Ripals and Prince did not help much.


        It didn’t help because there were no aircraft carriers in their compound and also because the actions of the British were not thought out. Everything came in a hurry for which the British fully received.
    3. Engineer
      Engineer 26 June 2020 19: 43 New
      +2
      In the 41st, British aircraft carriers could not defend themselves.
      Illustries and Formidebl confirm
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 26 June 2020 23: 41 New
        +2
        What do they confirm? Both served until the end of the war. You still call Glorios.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 27 June 2020 09: 11 New
          0
          They will confirm that they received a tambourine from backlash and lost their combat effectiveness in the midst of operations
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 27 June 2020 09: 28 New
            +2
            The British, unlike the Americans, were aware that in the area of ​​coastal aviation, AB is not a tenant. And so they did strong, reasonably designed ships, not Essex aircraft depots. Practice has shown that the British, of course, were right.

            Another conversation is that the Americans, as always, managed to crush the mass, especially having rickety Japanese, and not backlash.
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 27 June 2020 09: 50 New
              -1
              Of course not a tenant. That is why imbecile Cunningham threw formidebl on the attack of scarpanto.
              Not a tenant were the British aircraft carriers with their clown fighters. Therefore, it was necessary to book their pre-aircraft carriers. But these guys forgot about PTZ again.
              Essex is the quintessence of a strike aircraft carrier. The best avik of the second world.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 27 June 2020 10: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Engineer
                That is why imbecile Cunningham threw formidebl on the attack of scarpanto.

                )))
                ABC, with all its advantages, was inclined to adventures. Unlike most of the same, he was transferred to headquarters before he was no longer transported.
                Quote: Engineer
                Not a tenant were the British aircraft carriers with their clown fighters

                Well, who else but the Americans should remember about clown fighters with their thunderstorm of the seas Brewster Buffalo, a miracle of American car building.
                And in the 43rd, when the Americans got goodHellket flying shed, Corsairs flew from these same non-tenants.
                Quote: Engineer
                Therefore, I had to book my pre-navy

                See AB Midway. See AB Nimitz.
                Quote: Engineer
                The best avik of the second world

                Essex is an aircraft carrier as people understand it, who were recently told about a ship with airplanes. When people know what they are doing, they build Implacable, of course.

                On the other hand, of course, Implacable had two drawbacks that cross out all its advantages.

                - Few.
                - Too late.

                On the third hand, they were laid 2 years earlier than Essex. The Americans did not even have the mind to take a finished project, they began to invent their own barn.
                1. Engineer
                  Engineer 27 June 2020 11: 18 New
                  0
                  Brewster Buffalo

                  Better than Fulmar. Any objections?
                  See AB Midway. See AB Nimitz.

                  Post-war.
                  There is a fork in wartime - within the framework of 30 thousand, either armor or an air group. Americans chose an air group and won as for me. And combine armor and air group in this displacement will not work as everyone understands
                  And in the 43rd, when the Americans received a well-flying Hellket shed, Corsairs flew from these non-residents

                  What is this passage for? British aircraft carrier airbags are a national disgrace
                  In the 44th year, Indifatigable his ship thorn was carried, among other things, by the squadron of Firefly. Wunderwaffe, really. This is not to mention the super-duper sifira. I’m generally silent about barracuda.
                  At the beginning of 45 years at Implacable, NO ONE Corsair
                  Hellket is the best of this wandering circus.

                  On the other hand, of course, Implacable had two minuses,


                  60 aircraft in operational readiness. Soryu level (54 without spare). This despite the fact that with American planes Soryu will carry more - the folding mechanism of the wings from Grumman steers.
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 27 June 2020 11: 38 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Engineer
                    Better than Fulmar. Any objections?

                    )))
                    1. Yes, the British could not make three aircraft at the same time. Tactical, marine and strategic.

                    However, the Americans, too.

                    2. From the point of view of Fv190 the difference is minimal.

                    Quote: Engineer
                    Post war

                    Midway - the 43rd year of the bookmark.

                    By the way, again a year later than the similar Needle.

                    Once again, by the way. Someone told me about the useless LC Wangard, shame, they say, which one. I don’t remember who.
                    Quote: Engineer
                    within 30 thousand, either an armor or an air group. Americans chose an air group and won as for me

                    Lost. Check out the midnike about creating Japanese divisions. Plus or minus thirty aircraft can be sent to Alfastrike from one deck at a time. Maximum 2 waves. The rest is just a warehouse of aircraft.

                    See any great end-of-war operation. Marianne, Yamato, whatever. Divide the number of aircraft in one departure by the number of aircraft involved.

                    For reference. The British did not store planes on the take-off deck until they began to hang out with the Americans. In the 45th, the Implacable carried 80+ cars.

                    Quote: Engineer
                    British aircraft carrier airbags are a national disgrace

                    That is, the conversation about the ships turns into a conversation about the aircraft. Here you are basically right. Lime coastal aviation is definitely better, and deck aviation is definitely worse than American.
                    1. Engineer
                      Engineer 27 June 2020 11: 57 New
                      0
                      2. From the point of view of Fv190 the difference is minimal.

                      Well, what does the foker have to do with it if we talk about 41 years. In the 42nd buffalo quickly changed. But the Fulmars fought in the 43rd.
                      Midway - the 43rd year of bookmarking

                      What is this for? Midway post-war. Fact
                      Check out the midnike about creating Japanese divisions. Plus or minus thirty aircraft can be sent to Alfastrike from one deck at a time. Maximum 2 waves. The rest is just a warehouse of aircraft.

                      We count. 30 + 30 in shock waves. Air fighter patrol - at least 12, taking into account continuous rotation. At least 4 scouts are released before the strike.
                      Spare aircraft allow you to maintain the functioning of groups in the database lasting weeks.
                      Conclusion - a large drummer begins with 80 aircraft.
                      In the 45th, the Implacable carried 80+ cars.

                      Its optimum is 60 with a little. Essex Optimum 80 with a little.
                      Enterprise in Impact Ability Surpasses Illastries Even More Than Essex Implacable
                      1. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 12: 48 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Well, what does the foker have to do with it if we talk about 41 years. In the 42nd buffalo quickly changed. But the Fulmars fought in the 43rd.

                        If you change Buffalo to Wildcat and 190 to 109, the result will not change. The British were forced to work in conditions when the enemy was obviously stronger.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Midway post-war. Fact

                        After Midway laid 7 essays.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        a big drummer starts with 80 planes.
                        In the 45th, the Implacable carried 80+ cars.

                        It is the same.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Its optimum is 60 with a little. Essex Optimum 80 with a little.

                        Again. The Americans kept the planes on deck, the British - only on MOT. With this in mind, the difference is 20 aircraft. For 20 spare aircraft paid by a radical decrease in combat stability. Esses, by the way, has complete w / and more.

                        Make Casablanca and store spare planes in them.
                      2. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 13: 26 New
                        0
                        Once again, so again.
                        Given the aircraft on deck, Essex carried 103 aircraft. This is the 45th year, high-intensity operations against the metropolis lasting for many weeks. Once again, one hundred and three. Only 9 of them are in reserve. Source - Balakin.
                        Implacable
                        Upon its completion on March 10, 1945, 801, 828, 880, and 1771 Squadrons reembarked with a total strength of 48 Seafires, 21 Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers and a dozen Fireflies, the largest air group aboard a British carrier thus far.
                        Total 81. A record number.
                        Essex is always significantly stronger in terms of air group. Though based on the flight deck even without.
                        Essex is larger in displacement, well, its aerial lifts are bigger, there are more cellars, anti-aircraft artillery, and radars. PTZ. Everything is better except the notorious armored deck.
  4. Alaric
    Alaric 2 July 2020 22: 21 New
    0
    GSS fighter pilot Vasily Golubev in his memoirs recalls that as soon as he became a comedian, he immediately ordered to put on airplanes radios shot before the war, and there were already Pegmatit radars on the Baltic Fleet. And they began to direct him on the radar.
    Actually, Golubev drove the Fritz in the tail and mane. Over the Road of Life, he dispersed 16 German bombers with an I-80, simulating a ram.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 26 June 2020 19: 18 New
    +6
    In 1939/40 the battleship finally replaced the completely archaic by that time 76,2-mm Lender anti-aircraft guns with the same number 34-K. During the last pre-war modernization (from the winter of 1939/40 to February 1941), the ship lost all the Maxims, but acquired another 2 * 76,2 mm 34-K anti-aircraft guns at the stern, and 3 * 37 each -mm submachine gun 70-K on the bow and stern superstructures.

    I still wildly apologize, but did you put a 34-K on the aft sections? Because Vasilyev wrote about the installation of the 81-K sparks there (as on Oktyabrina).
    In 1940, six open 76,2 mm anti-aircraft guns of the Lender system (on the end towers) were replaced with the same number of new 76,2 mm 34-K gun mounts with 12 mm armor shields. In addition, two more shield-mounted twin 76,2-mm 81-K gun mounts were placed onboard at the aft sections, for which it was necessary to remove two aft 120-mm guns, in the casemates of which were equipped with anti-aircraft ammunition cellars. Fire control of the bow and stern 76,2 mm anti-aircraft batteries was carried out with the help of two 3-m stereo range finders and the PUZO Tablet system installed in 1932. Subsequently, the ship received six latest-in-time 37-mm 70-K submachine guns (three on the fore and aft bridges), for the purpose of targeting which were installed two 1,5-mm stereo range finders, as well as 13 12,7-mm DShK machine guns .

    There were definitely 81-Ks on Oktyabrina — one of them stands in Kronstadt in memory of the heroic deed of the foreman of the 1st article, Tombasov (who commanded this gun mount and died, throwing ammunition that was ignited by a German shell overboard).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 June 2020 21: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      I still wildly apologize, but did you put a 34-K on the aft sections?

      Here zhezh ... But I checked 100 times crying
      You are absolutely right, really 81-K. Somewhere I was mistaken and thought that they were installed later.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 26 June 2020 19: 35 New
    +4
    but only 127 mm / 25 guns

    This booklet explicitly states that this is a good anti-aircraft gun
    http://wunderwafe.ru/WeaponBook/USA_BB_2/10.htm
    And the “Paris Commune” machine guns are one and a half times more than the “Maryland” machine guns.

    It seems that machine guns are absolutely useless.
    The flagship battleship of the famous British admiral E. Cunningham “Worthspite” had 4 paired 102-mm anti-aircraft guns, 4 eight-barreled 40-mm “pom-pom” installations and 11 * 20-mm “Erlikonov”. Superiority is not so significant, but still quite tangible

    In my opinion it is great advantage over PC. By the way, Worspite was disabled at the beginning of the battle of Crete
    Comparison of battleships is given only by guns; This makes the comparison inferior.
    The article is rather weak in comparison with the old articles of the author. It is in terms of analytics. And of course, thanks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 June 2020 20: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      This booklet explicitly states that this is a good anti-aircraft gun

      Really? Please quote :))))
      Quote: Engineer
      It seems that machine guns are absolutely useless.

      No, it’s quite useful - especially at the first stage of the war. They were insufficient for a normal means of air defense, the 1 mm machine gun was optimal, but ... insufficient, does not mean useless
      Quote: Engineer
      In my opinion, this is a big advantage over the PC.

      What do you think, how quickly it was possible to direct a twin and fairly long-barrel 102-mm gun without an SSP? :))) It is clear that it had a better range than 34K, but in the near zone it did not lose.
      And about the 16-ton 8-barrel pumps, which generally could not work without power drives ... Well, the example of the Prince of Wells is indicative.
      Quote: Engineer
      MSA FOR is not compared. This makes the comparison inferior.

      does not. Firstly, as I have already said, the quality of domestic SLAs is unknown, and secondly, the quality of British SLAs is known, and, to put it mildly, left much to be desired. Recall how many planes the Prince of Wells and Ripals shot down in their last battle?
      Quote: Engineer
      The article is rather weak compared to the old articles of the author.

      This is nothing more than working on the mistakes of previous articles.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 26 June 2020 21: 21 New
        +2
        From some sources it follows that the battleships of the "Nevada" and "Pennsylvania" types, which underwent modernization a little earlier - at the turn of the 20-30s there were ordinary installations with a manual drive; however, judging by other sources (including the recollections of the crew members), at least by the beginning of the war on the battleships, these installations were also upgraded to the level of the latest “cruising” modifications. For installations with manual guidance, the horizontal guidance speed was 32 ° / s, and vertical 22 ° / s, excellent performance for the heavy anti-aircraft guns of the time.

        The technique of calculating and servicing the gun was well thought out, and the large staffing of servants indicates the Americans' love for a clear organization and narrow specialization, rather than the real level of needs - for example, when attacking Pearl Harbor but "Pennsylvania" the crew commander with two sailors fired from such a gun faster than expected by the standard, a full crew of 15 people.

        Separately about the SLA
        Fire control of 127 mm / 25 installations was provided by specially designed Mk19 guidance systems. These systems with guidance posts with gyroscopic stabilization entered service in 1928 and were the first truly effective fire control systems for heavy anti-aircraft artillery in the world.. On the battleships, these posts were located on-board on the superstructure and managed manually; rangefinders were installed on separate platforms nearby. During the last pre-war “cosmetic” modernization of battleships in 1940, these posts were replaced by more advanced Mk-33s, combined with 4,6 m stereo range finders and enclosed in characteristic armored “boxes” on rotating bases. Initial data on the target from the long-distance post was transmitted to the CAC, which generated data on the upcoming change in the position of the target, then these data were transmitted in real time to pointers to the guns and simultaneously to the fuse installation mechanisms on the calculation platforms to the left of each gun. These same devices provided target designation when firing at surface targets.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 26 June 2020 23: 21 New
          -1
          Quote: Engineer
          they say it’s a good anti-aircraft gun

          )))
          When did the Americans directly say that they had Mr. Someone?

          5/25 was, frankly, weird anti-aircraft. A barrel of 25 klb provided an initial projectile speed of about 650 m / s, unitary loading, shot 36 kg. So it’s not very clear what the Americans were planning to get into from such an anti-aircraft gun. At high altitude, in the same Rudel, before entering the dive, you’ll get into a fig, a projectile will fly for a very long time, and it’s strange to shoot from a caliber like a torpedo carrier.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 27 June 2020 09: 10 New
            +1
            [/ quote] A barrel of 25 klb provided an initial projectile speed of about 650 m / s, [/ quote]
            What is Freud's hypercompensation?
            The conventional Rudel flies up to the target at an altitude of no more than 6 km. Enough is enough. For torpedo bombers generally buzzing.
            In the book I quoted, it is written what exactly fell and shot down. In the same HRP.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 27 June 2020 09: 24 New
              -1
              Americans always write that they hit and shot down. In addition, if someone once got into something from a cannon, this does not make it a reasonable design.

              Quote: Engineer
              For torpedo bombers generally buzzing.

              For torpedo bombers need fire density. Which you must provide by pulling 36kg unitars to 4 trunks on board.

              A heavy air defense is needed not for torpedo bombers, but for plane bombers who bomb from a great height. See Mitchell. The Americans built air defense based on their own crazy ideas about war at sea.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 27 June 2020 09: 44 New
                -1
                As far as I know, five-inch shooting down of several planes in ph is a fact. The battleships later excelled when firing at their aircraft. The collapse of aircraft anti-aircraft main criterion of effectiveness. Yes, it is even better to prevent an attack with dense fire, but there will be no objective criteria in this case. Therefore, only the downed remain.
                The high guidance speed allowed the use of these guns in the near zone, including against torpedo bombers.
                A heavy anti-aircraft gun against horizontal sea bombers is not relevant due to the meager effectiveness of these bombers. At least for the Pacific Ocean. For the Japanese, torps and dive bombers did the job. Against them, this kurzgerat is quite imagined.
                As a man who threw 50 kg into the barrel from the ground from the cellar without a car dumper, I do not consider 36 kg to be something beyond the limits, especially since the calculation made it possible to replace the "stoker"
                Density is achieved by quantity. You go from discussing guns to discussing air defense ship. This is a substitute for the topic.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 27 June 2020 09: 55 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  the downing of several planes by five inches in ph is a fact.

                  Yes. I do not claim that 5 ", as did the mass Erlikons, were completely useless. I only claim that they are useless compared to rationally organized air defense.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  A heavy anti-aircraft gun against horizontal sea bombers is not relevant due to the meager effectiveness of these bombers

                  You say so now. The Americans even in the 42nd tried to bomb Nagumo B-17.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Against them, this kurzgerat is quite imagined.

                  You compare 5/25 with zero. And it should be compared with normal zentiks. American 3/50 of the 45th year, 88 on the Dolchlands, etc.

                  The maximum firing rate, high, and after the war - the highest ballistics.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  As a man who threw 50 kg into the barrel from the ground from the cellar without a dodger, I do not consider 36 kg to be something beyond

                  Everyone has fun as best he can. But according to the same Americans, the growth of the projectile / unit above 25 kg with manual loading sharply reduces the rate of fire.
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 27 June 2020 10: 37 New
                    0
                    rationally organized air defense.

                    Not until a year that way 43 no one.
                    You say so now. The Americans even in the 42nd tried to bomb Nagumo B-17.

                    They had a B-17 why not bomb. And yes, the effectiveness of weapons can only be determined by having aftertaste.
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 27 June 2020 11: 20 New
                      0
                      Quote: Engineer
                      Not until a year that way 43 no one.



                      Quote: Engineer
                      yes, the effectiveness of weapons can only be determined by having aftertaste.

                      What do you say? When did sick Englishmen use the top-mast coastal bombing? When did the Americans learn about this?

                      I always write the same thing. Understanding the 38/58 TF as the Americans is the same as understanding the army of the times of Wislo-Oder as the Red Army. The 41-year-old Americans are armed with horrible and, most importantly, enchantingly stupid and incompetent creatures without any, even the most approximate, concepts of the modern war at that time at sea.
                      1. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 11: 40 New
                        +1
                        When did sick Englishmen use the top-mast coastal bombing? When did the Americans learn about this?

                        Lord, why attract all new entities? The debate about the anti-aircraft gun. American.
                        And the British are not so much sick as much wretched)
                        I always write the same thing. Understanding the 38/58 TF as the Americans is the same as understanding the army of the times of Wislo-Oder as the Red Army.

                        Why bust through an open door? Everyone understands this.
                        The 41-year-old Americans are armed with horrible and, most importantly, enchantingly stupid and incompetent creatures without any, even the most approximate, concepts of the modern war at that time at sea.

                        Instead of value judgments, I prefer analysis of the results.
                        1941 - the greatest striking force at sea, the Japanese fleet with its kido butai
                        1942 year end. Kido Butai is gone.
                        Americans dragged on pre-war luggage.
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 11: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        to attract all new entities?

                        Quote: Engineer
                        they were B-17 why not bomb. And yes, the effectiveness of weapons can only be determined by having aftertaste.

                        This type of anti-aircraft gun is used not to bring down someone, but for barrage fire. The idea is not very working.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Americans dragged on pre-war luggage.

                        On the apron. And at the radio interception, which was promoted by enthusiasts, not the command. The command lost 2 AB out of the blue, Saratoga before the battle, Yorktown after.

                        By the way, Midway clearly shows that the Americans did not learn how to engage in alfastrike and massaging aviation by that time. Air defense control of the compound is also so-so.
                      3. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 12: 02 New
                        +1
                        This type of anti-aircraft gun is used not to bring down someone, but for barrage fire. The idea is not very working.

                        Hit is not necessary ???
                        But how it all began
                        So it’s not very clear what the Americans from this anti-aircraft gun were planning to fall. At high altitude, in the same Rudel, before entering the dive, figs get, a very long projectile flies, it’s strange to shoot at a shaver too somehow from such a caliber.

                        the Americans fell. And to put the veil in the right direction from a not very heapy, but very agile and fast five-inch one is even easier.
                        On the apron. And at the radio interception, which was promoted by enthusiasts, not the command. The command lost 2 AB out of the blue, Saratoga before the battle, Yorktown after.

                        In addition to midway, there were three aircraft carrier confrontations. In all cases, the Americans fought on equal terms.

                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 12: 36 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Hit is not necessary ???

                        To hit It turned out impossible.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        In all cases, the Americans fought on equal terms.

                        Are you talking about the same Americans who stayed in the fall with two aircraft carriers on two oceans (Sarah and Enterprise, the third Ranger)? These are the ones that enough luggageI got it right?
                      5. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 12: 48 New
                        0
                        They are the most. Caught right.
                        Yapy after Santa Cruz have one Zuikaku. And the battle for Guadalcanal is lost. This is super yapi. Without any irony.
                        So phobias prevent you from seeing facts.
                        PS
                        It turned out to be impossible to get

                        Old posts for which I have not received a rebuttal.
                        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
                        There is evidence that these are Amer’s tales?
                      6. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 13: 05 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        yap after santa cruz one zuikaku

                        That is, from 6 AB PX, 4 were sunk on the apron and 1 under repair.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        127 mm guns shot down by 1 or 2 torpedo bombers

                        Quote: Engineer
                        posts that have not received a rebuttal.

                        And why should there be a refutation? I somewhere argued that 5/25 is actually cuttings / handles from mops, like Mikhalkov / Dullittle?
                        No, having wandered from the American D-25T by plane, you may well bring him down if you get there, I was not going to argue with that.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        as soon as the planes appeared above the base, Pennsylvania anti-aircraft crews were among the first to fire, and in a matter of minutes almost all planes were shot down
                        There is evidence that these are Amer’s tales?

                        When did the Americans bring down their own landing planes? Why should I refute this?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        enchantingly dumb and incompetent creatures
                      7. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 13: 43 New
                        0
                        That is, from 6 AB PX, 4 were sunk on the apron and 1 under repair.

                        That is, Ryudze, Seho, Dzuyho basically do not consider.
                        And the approximate parity for the loss of aircraft in three battles apart from Midway is also nothing.
                        I somewhere argued that 5/25 is actually cuttings / handles from mops, like Mikhalkov / Dullittle?

                        That is, our korotkostvol still full-fledged anti-aircraft gun?
                        enchantingly dumb and incompetent creatures

                        It happens. But the Britons are even next to them second league.
                      8. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 14: 53 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        That is, Ryudze, Seho, Dzuyho basically do not consider.

                        We don’t think Dzuikho, but Ryujie and Seho - well, that’s it. You can calculate, but then Langley too.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Britons even next to them the second league.

                        Also did frags on their own planes?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        That is, our korotkostvol still full-fledged anti-aircraft gun?

                        Korotkostvol was not a full-fledged anti-aircraft guns. Anti-aircraft guns - high ballistic. But this does not mean that it was impossible to shoot down an airplane from this howitzer. The British generally put anti-aircraft anti-aircraft mortars, I’m sure it’s warming your soul)))
                        At the time of entry into operation, the Essex Air Group consisted of four squadrons - reconnaissance, bomber, torpedo-bombing and fighter. The latter was actually double and consisted of 36 aircraft, the rest - 18. In addition, there was one aircraft (dive bomber), intended for the commander of an air group; another nine vehicles (three of each type) were stored in a partially disassembled form and served as a reserve to make up for combat losses. Thus, a total of 100 aircraft were based on the aircraft carrier: 39 F4F Wildcat fighters, 40 reconnaissance and dive bombers SBD Downtless and 21 torpedo bomber Avenger.

                        Returning to the arithmetic of alfastrake, Essex had 5 squadrons, 2 fighter (one for escorting attack vehicles, one for its own air defense), two bomber (one was considered reconnaissance) and one torpedo-bearing. Please note that dumb Americans even in 43rd formed squadrons with triples 18 = 3x3x2, and not 2x2x2x2 pairs. At the same time, only one strike and half of the fighter squadron could be released into alfastrike for timings. In the second wave - the second shock and the second half of the fighter.

                        In the normal formation of squadrons, there should be 16 + 16 + 2x16 = 64 vehicles. The rest are spare. OK, due to the incorrect organization of the squadrons, 8 more vehicles are added, the 9th commander. 73 pieces. Other cars - SpareThey cannot participate in Alfastrike. Yes, spare cars with spare pilots, this also happens.

                        By the way, for air defense and reconnaissance it is more reasonable to single out a separate light aircraft carrier. When Alfastrike aircraft carriers are simultaneously forced to provide air defense, Midway is obtained. Well, who, and the Americans should find an extra aircraft carrier.
                      9. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 15: 36 New
                        0
                        We don’t think Dzuikho, but Ryujie and Seho - well, that’s it. You can calculate, but then Langley too.

                        The party for those shot down in the confrontation with the best pilots in the world is that good too?
                        Korotkostvol was not a full-fledged anti-aircraft guns. Anti-aircraft guns - high ballistic.

                        This short-barreled gun is better than the "high-ballistic" QF Mark 1
                        But here, apparently, each with his own.
                        If from constructively productive, then we perceive combat stability in a very different way.
                        The British generally put anti-aircraft anti-aircraft mortars, I’m sure it’s warming your soul)))

                        The British are an illustration for sic transit gloria mundis. A reminder that there is nothing settled in life and once and for all definite.
                        At the same time, only one strike and half of the fighter squadron could be released to alfastrike by timings.

                        Amer Alfastrike looks so-so only in comparison with the Japanese
                        Any Briton will make your alfastrike worse than Essex.
                        Elevators 2 vs 3 and they are less. The flight deck is smaller, the catapult is one versus 1-2. The bailout system is 4-point versus two-point in Amers - more complex and slower.
                        Essex will release the air group much faster. If he does not pull on the timings, then shaving even more so.
                        Moving on.
                        Did you notice that the best British aircraft carriers don't carry Corsairs?
                        In the book, the aircraft carrier Victories writes that American planes did not fit into Implacable's two-tier hangar. 21 full-fledged drummer - an eugener and that’s all. 81 aircraft recruited only at the expense of 48 miserable Sifayrov.
                        Even the best Brit is a bad drummer. In operations against the coast, it will be even worse. Gasoline stocks, for example, need to be reminded?

                        By the way, for air defense and reconnaissance it is more reasonable to single out a separate light aircraft carrier.

                        No one provided an air defense to a separate aircraft carrier. Each penguin always carried its own eggs. The Japanese, too. This is something and says yes.
                      10. Octopus
                        Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 48 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Each penguin always carried its own eggs. The Japanese, too. This is something and says yes.

                        How to say. Late Americans had just too many aircraft carriers; they could afford anything. Have you divided the number of Spruens planes by Paul Marians by the number of his aircraft carriers?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Did you notice that the best British aircraft carriers don't carry Corsairs?

                        Quote: Octopus
                        That is, the conversation about the ships turns into a conversation about the aircraft. Here you are basically right

                        Quote: Engineer
                        Amer Alfastrike looks so-so only in comparison with the Japanese

                        According to the law of meanness, it was necessary to fight with the Japanese.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Any Briton will make your alfastrike worse than Essex.

                        You are right about the details. But it is not necessary to exaggerate the role of elevators, the main limiter is the throughput of the direct deck and the permissible time for collecting the group.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        This short-barreled gun is better than the "high-ballistic" QF Mark 1

                        Which 4.5 leech? Why do you think so?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The party for those shot down in the confrontation with the best pilots in the world is that good too?

                        In general, it won’t work, you need to disassemble each operation separately.
                      11. Engineer
                        Engineer 27 June 2020 17: 07 New
                        0
                        According to the law of meanness, it was necessary to fight with the Japanese.

                        Why meanness? They stopped it in a year. having suffered less losses than the English in the first couple of months.
                        The strongest English connection after Mr. Nagumo’s visit reached Kenya.
                        Even in 1944, the shock capabilities of the Japanese are higher than that of the British
                        That is, the conversation about the ships turns into a conversation about the aircraft.

                        It’s hard to separate an aircraft carrier from an air group when it comes to combat effectiveness. Here it is necessary to clearly understand that the British aircraft carriers with a complete transition to American aircraft will noticeably lose in the number of air groups, and for Implacable a complete transition is impossible in principle. See above
                        You are right about the details. But it is not necessary to exaggerate the role of elevators, the main limiter is the throughput of the direct deck and the permissible time for collecting the group.

                        The collection time of the air group is limited primarily by the fuel supply. In what place will the British with their Sephyres themselves say or will you send long-range reconnaissance?
                        Which 4.5 leech? Why do you think so?

                        Hover speed is higher. Rate of fire too
                        In general, it won’t work, you need to disassemble each operation separately.

                        I'm talking about all the same three battles of aircraft carriers in the 42nd, not counting Midway
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 27 June 2020 14: 55 New
      +1
      Well yes. For half a year, stupid Americans, who had lost all battleships at the Pacific Fleet, in the floating warehouses of the aircraft, overshadowed all the striking forces of the Japanese.
      It’s not clear who was stupid. wink
    3. Engineer
      Engineer 27 June 2020 15: 54 New
      +1
      The Americans are. The user has an octopus in each tentacle according to the corresponding plate.
      Separately, about fighters, separately about the fleet, and about OKNSh. And about the post-war course there is a minimum of a couple.
      The idiocy of the Americans is perfect, ultimatum. laughing
    4. Octopus
      Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 40 New
      -1
      Quote: Engineer
      The idiocy of the Americans is perfect, ultimatum

      Yes of course.

      Under Roosevelt, the American state jumped from small to large. And then, almost instantly - a superpower. Naturally, absolutely nothing was ready for this. Naturally, absolutely everything that the state was doing turned out badly. And, of course, in military matters everything was still much worse than average - there the personnel secondaryness simply reached transcendental, practically Bolshevik heights. That is the depths.
    5. mmaxx
      mmaxx 28 June 2020 10: 29 New
      -1
      I think that idiocy is common to the entire military class. The main thing, when the war comes, quickly find smart to replace stupid. Despite the charters, laws, etc. crap. The most interesting thing is that those who are looking for are smart in the end.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 03 New
    -2
    Quote: mmaxx
    It’s not clear who was stupid

    )))
    God loved America more than it deserved.

    Mariana and Guadalcanal are a regularity, but Midway is an accident.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 15: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Engineer
    And the British are not so much sick as much wretched)

    Quote: Octopus
    most importantly, enchantingly stupid and incompetent creatures


    )))
    Even Admiral Nelson did not allow himself such arrogance).
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 15: 49 New
    0
    Just the transition from the situation “the British fleet always travels first class” to decline, and the comprehensive, methodological, technical, theoretical, practical was very sharp
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 16: 18 New
    +1
    This is just your subjective opinion. In reality, the English fleet in WWII defeated all its rivals. Naturally, they suffered losses. But you and Osmin's colleague are maximalists. If you defeated not with a dry score, it means miserable stupid people. That the British are Americans.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 16: 22 New
    0
    Of course subjective.
    We have theses and evidence. laughing
    Victory is not an indicator of effectiveness; it is an indicator of superiority. General superiority.
    The Japanese and German fleets in terms of price and quality far surpassed the Allies. Especially Japanese. Yes, on a small scale it’s easier to achieve some average performance indicators, but the difference is too striking.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 17: 48 New
    -1
    Quote: Engineer
    Japanese and German fleets in terms of price and quality far surpassed allies

    These are phrases that are rhetorical in general, through which you can prove / refute anything you want and the exact opposite)
    Here, explain to me the effectiveness of the criterion for the price / quality of the battleship Bismarck)
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 20: 21 New
    0
    Here, explain to me the effectiveness of the criterion for the price / quality of the battleship Bismarck)

    In conditions when the Navy is not the main recipient of resources and is not considered by the leadership as a means to achieve victory in the war as a whole, the best that it can do is to divert the maximum amount of enemy resources. In this, German submarines had no equal
    As for Bismarck, everything is simple. This is not too good, but the right battleship.
    Actually Bismarck deafeningly slammed the door in the Danish Strait against a more powerful enemy.
    The ill-fated torpedo of jammed rudders is an accident. Happy for the British. The battleship was damaged literally at the very last moment. Of course, the war is full of such accidents, but it is worth recognizing that the combat stability of not the best LC specifically against the British is exceptional.
    To understand the effectiveness, we can recall the number of battleships and aircraft carriers involved to intercept -5 and 2 (from memory)
    With access to the sea, Bismarck created favorable conditions for aviation and submarines.
    For example, the backlashes drowned Mason.
    Tirpits is a classic "in binh" - he was personally tutored in Norway by 2 Lux and 1Av of the metropolitan fleet. Samo his presence (more precisely, the message about the absence in Trondheim) affected the disaster PQ-17, forcing the British to disband the cover. Well, the unsuccessful spring-summer air offensive of the British with an unprecedented concentration of aircraft carriers hitherto unprecedented for lime in 1944 goes to him as an asset.
    Summary. The usefulness and effectiveness of these LCs is complete.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 20: 36 New
    -1
    Quote: Engineer

    Bismarck itself is deafening

    I failed the task for which I left the base. Which consisted in destroying enemy convoys and not shooting.
    His hiking mate Eugen is just a reference example of cost / effectiveness)

    “The results of the“ Rhine exercises ”were very deplorable. The cruiser stayed at sea for 2 weeks, moving at high speed almost all the time; he burned 6500 cubic meters of fuel and walked 7 miles - and all without any result, except for 000 or 3 shells that fell into the enemy’s heavy ships in a battle in the Danish Strait. In addition to the death of Bismarck, the Germans lost 4 supply vessels that provided the voyage and were sunk or captured by the British. And at the end of everything, “Eugen” ended up in a kind of “imprisonment” in the French port
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 20: 47 New
    0
    Performing a task at any cost is not a good cartoon. Planning must be flexible.
    Bismarck broke through the straits and went to France.
    The loss of supply vessels is a direct consequence of reading German ciphers. To reproach the German fleet here is Pharisaism.
    "Conclusion" in France is the merit of the Bomber Command, not RN. This success was bought at a fairly high price, plus German ships were given priority over other goals.
    Hippers, unlike Bismarcks, are generally inefficient ships. Nobody extols them.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 06: 34 New
    0
    The ill-fated torpedo at Bismarck is the result of the perseverance and skill of the British, the courage of their pilots. Lucky one who deserves this luck. And the result of the stupidity of Lutens and the entire German machine.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 11: 47 New
    -1
    Quote: mmaxx
    Lucky one who deserves this luck.

    Well, that is pure luck ...

    Quote: mmaxx
    And the result of the stupidity of Lutens and the entire German machine.

    Can I deepen and broaden the thought?
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 15: 10 New
    0
    Radiogram to the center
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 15: 27 New
    0
    Quote: mmaxx
    Radiogram to the center

    Oh ... Again, a great legend, generated by the difference in time and time of receiving the radiogram (the truth about it, the difference, for some reason they forget). :)
    Suffolk was unable to restore contact with Bismarck in 0401, and at 0441 reported that the contact was lost.
    Lutiens sent parts of the radiogram to 0401, 0417, 0428 and 0443, respectively, that they were received by the West Group at the beginning of the tenth - a separate issue.
    So the question of Lutens or not is very debatable.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 36 New
    -1
    Quote: Engineer
    the transition from the situation "the British fleet always travels first class" to decline, and the comprehensive, methodological, technical, theoretical, practical was very sharp

    Yes. And it happened in the 50s and 60s, when it suddenly became clear that dominion over the seas is not such a pleasure.

    The English deck came up with a corner deck. The steam catapult was invented by the British.

    In the 40s there was no question of decline. The questions there are just to the Americans, who failed more or less all the programs of the 30s.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 16: 42 New
    +1
    The decline of the fleet began before the First World War.
    A catastrophe with fuses for armor-piercing shells, poor shooting, no separation into compartments, complete degradation among admirals.
    Further downhill.
    The English deck came up with a corner deck. The steam catapult was invented by the British.

    This is not technical leadership. These are separate innovations.
    Generating the highest number of new products in World War I, the British, on average, were inferior to the Germans
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    The decline of the fleet began before the First World War.

    Hello, we’ve arrived. And these people forbid me to pull tentacles to the Americans wassat
  • Engineer
    Engineer 27 June 2020 17: 40 New
    +1
    Royal Navy yearns for decline
    He could not overcome the Japs
    Its sticky pulls tentacles
    Tricky user-mollusk Octopus

    But two forces break it off
    History has its own protocol -
    UES Navi and super anti-aircraft gun,
    The one that has a short barrel
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 15: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    most importantly, enchantingly stupid and incompetent creatures

    This is shocking. Each carrier of the Super Idea eventually becomes her slave.
    Quote: Octopus
    without any, even the most approximate, concepts of the modern war at that time at sea.

    Quote: Octopus
    without any, even the most approximate, concepts of the modern war at that time at sea.

    And who is the standard for naval strategists and tactics for 41 years?)
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 15: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Liam
    Each carrier of the Super Idea eventually becomes her slave.

    )))
    Naturally, I am inclined to polemically sharpen this thesis. However, for me, the embodiment of the American warriors of 1941 is, of course, the lieutenant (subsequently lieutenant colonel) Kermit Tyler. The one who replied “don’t worry about it” to the message “200 planes are flying to us”.

    Died in 2010, a war veteran, salute from pioneers Boy Scouts.

    And if the five-star lieutenant colonel Eisenhower has some excuses, they say, the motherland found, washed, cleaned from the trash and sent the commander of the SES, then the navy has no excuses. All by yourself, with your own hands.
    Quote: Liam
    And who is the standard for naval strategists and tactics for 41 years

    Brilliant - Japanese, inventors of AUG, acceptable - ABC.
    Quote: Liam
    Admiral Nelson did not allow himself such arrogance).

    )))
    We are sofa admirals, we can.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 16: 12 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    "200 planes fly to us"

    Are you sure for the accuracy of the quote?)
    Quote: Octopus
    Brilliantly - Japanese, inventors of AUG

    Why, you. And for some reason I thought that the British were the first-born, and I, the Japanese, simply copied their experience of the attack on Taranto a year earlier
    Quote: Octopus
    We are sofa admirals, we can

    In such cases, from turning into what thread of olgovich self-irony is the last redoubt)
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 16: 24 New
    -1
    Quote: Liam
    Are you sure for the accuracy of the quote?

    No, of course, I'm not his mother.
    Quote: Liam
    For some reason, I thought that the British were the first-born, and I, the Japanese, simply copied their experience of attacking Taranto a year earlier

    No, you were thinking wrong. In this regard, the engineer is above rights, the British could not go to Alfastrike, not that machinery. But their aircraft carriers were a long arm, and not a pure scout, like the Americans, and therefore acted quite effectively.

    But the Japanese came up with massaging aviation and alfastrike. This tactical innovation, like the Wehrmacht tank group, made them temporarily invincible. Until their enemies learned to do the same.

    Almost invincible.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 16: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Of course not

    Therefore, give as an example of "stupidity"?)
    Quote: Octopus
    You thought wrong

    A strike on the Taranto-classical operation AUG. Rather, AUS. Technical problems The needle is not a matter of strategy and tactics. Moreover, the operation in this form was conceived by the British (Admiral Lumley Lyster) back in 1935.
    Quote: Octopus
    made them invincible for a while

    As much as 5 months. Before the first serious battle in the Coral Sea against stupid Americans. And after 6 months, invincibles left horns and legs. Moreover, for this stupid Americans didn’t even have to learn how to fight, it was enough stupid luck (according to your theory)
    Who else in history has done such a dumb aft?)
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 17: 01 New
    -1
    Quote: Liam
    Therefore, give as an example of "stupidity"?)

    Too artistically finished image. It’s hard to resist.
    Quote: Liam
    Blow to the Taranto-classic operation AUG.

    Taranto vs. PX is the First Horse against Guderian.
    Quote: Liam
    for 6 months horns and legs remained from the invincible

    Horns and legs remained after Guadalcanal. According to the aircraft carriers, the Japanese should have come to an end at the end of the 43rd, the masses of Essex and F6F.

    But then the Americans set themselves a mobhack.
    Quote: Liam
    enough dumb luck (according to your theory)
    Who else in history has done such a dumb aft?)

    ))) Why provoke me? You know the answer.

    Comrade Stalin did much more. And even without any luck, on one bare greyhound.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 17: 13 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    Too artistic

    I will not argue with the flight of fancy)
    Quote: Octopus
    Taranto vs HRP

    It’s a different "size" of bases and the number of targets. You don’t have to be Solon to understand that you need 6 aircraft carriers and not 2. Otherwise, it’s pure copying. From the idea to implementation. Moreover, the British did it at night, which is much more difficult than during the day. Especially with that prior art.
    Quote: Octopus
    much more.

    We are specifically talking about KnowHow in the form of tank groups. The luck wasn’t enough there.
    Quote: Octopus
    on one bare greyhound

    Are you talking about 27 (?) Million dead and a broken ridge of the country?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 21: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Liam
    I won’t argue with a flight of fantasy)

    What else will get into fantasies? Do you reject the role of Lieutenant Tyler and his leadership in history?
    Quote: Liam
    The rest is pure copying

    Not. Going from 20 aircraft to 400 is not a pure copy. That way, your 45th year American floating rear will be a pure copy of the supply system for auxiliary cruisers - PMV Raiders.
    Quote: Liam
    aircraft carriers and not two

    Illastnies, and the second what?
    Quote: Liam
    We are specifically about KnowHow in the form of tank groups

    Lost thread
    Quote: Liam
    Are you talking about 27 (?) Million dead and a broken ridge of the country?

    Accurate in wording. No one ever showed any 27 million dead. This figure was sucked from the finger by the most honest Soviet historians in the world from GlavPUR, when the Party line changed, and we began to count wounds, comrades to count.

    First of all.
    The figure of Krivoshein is demographic losses.
    a) There sits a gene. Pavlov and the gene. Vlasov, designer Taubin and scientist Vavilov, even Marina Tsvetaeva sits in this figure.
    b) It is much more important that the war wrote off all the art of Soviet statistics of the 30s. Read about census 37 and census 39.
    c) If we calculate the American losses by the Krivoshein methods, then the second Roosevelt famine is formed due to delayed fertility and changes in the migration balance.

    The second and most important thing. Existence itself people - the invention of the liberals / priestly tales / intellectual snot.

    At comrade Stalin had no people at all. He had human resources. Resources were characterized by mobilization indicators, military and economic.

    These indicators for the WWII period, I recall, this is from the 39th to the 45th year, increased significantly. Even for the small USSR, which is within the state border. About the losses of the great USSR, in September 45th from Seoul to Lubeck, and speaking ridiculously.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 22: 08 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    Krivoshein

    Krivosheeva, of course.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 22: 38 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    You reject the role of Lieutenant Tyler’s personality

    I reject your interpretation of this episode and a fictitious quote
    Quote: Octopus
    Go from 20 aircraft to 400

    A strike at the Tug-classic AUG. Where the aircraft carrier is the main weapon, the whole operation is planned around him and all the other ships are present only to ensure its actions. The rest is rhetoric in polemic fury). The operation was planned in this form back in 1935. the Japanese planned this in the 35th?)

    Quote: Octopus
    and the second one?

    Eagle also had to participate. Its output was canceled the day before the operation for technical reasons.
    Quote: Octopus
    Accurate

    I am neat.
    Quote: Octopus
    on one bare greyhound

    You are about 27(?) million dead and a broken ridge of the country?

    And I'm not talking about demographic losses, but quite real. From 13 to 19, the army. Plus 6-8 non-combatants. Moreover, the most realistic is the upper bar of these estimates.
    Quote: Octopus
    all the art of Soviet statistics of the 30s

    I am well aware of the Stalinist statistics. But this does not change anything. The backbone of the country was broken during this war. And it went just like that and not differently, precisely thanks naked greyhound
  • unknown
    unknown 27 June 2020 23: 23 New
    0
    Then, real losses of up to 20 million.
    But, losses in WWII in general are a separate song.
    For example, the Poles claimed 6 million. But, they included everyone in this figure. Including those Germans, and those Jews whom they themselves began to destroy since the mid 30s.
    Hungary, with a population of 9 million at the beginning of the war, lost 400 thousand killed, that is, as much as the United States, and more than the British Empire.
    Romania, with a population of 15 million at the start of the war, lost 1 million 200 thousand killed, that is, more than the United States, the British Empire and Hungary TOGETHER TAKEN.
    The question is, did the USA and Great Britain fight at all?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 23: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Liam
    I reject your interpretation of this episode and a fictitious quote

    This is not an answer.
    Suggest your interpretation. The quote is an art detail.
    Quote: Liam
    Beat the Taranto classic AUG.

    Below
    Quote: Octopus
    It's not about who first came up with the use of aviation against ships (a hint - this did not happen in the 40th year), but who first came up with the idea of ​​forming a strike force around the aircraft carriers, not the LC, firstly, and massaging naval aviation secondly .

    Taranto - diversionary sortie. it not Novation in the war at sea.
    Quote: Liam
    Eagle also had to participate

    As it turned out, it happened. Two waves of 12 and 8 aircraft, EMNIP.
    Quote: Liam
    the losses are quite real. From 13 to 19, the army. Plus 6-8 non-combatants. Moreover, the most realistic is the upper bar of these estimates.

    The farther into the forest.
    Quote: Liam
    The ridge of the country was broken during this war. And it went just like that and not differently, precisely thanks to the naked greyhound

    There was no country. The Great Victory should be evaluated not from the point of view of an imaginary country, but from the point of view of the volume of power of the Leader. is he certainly increased.

    Churchill had such losses that he was flooded without waiting for the end of the war from work. And with comrade Stalin was fine.
    Quote: Liam
    it is thanks to the naked greyhound

    It is thanks to the naked greyhound that the volume of human resources of Comrade. Stalin rose at least 1.5 times with an increase in their quality due to territories not previously covered by Soviet power, and therefore noticeably more developed.
  • Liam
    Liam 27 June 2020 23: 46 New
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    Suggest your interpretation

    Why. There is an objective one. It was impossible to distinguish a flock of birds from a squadron of aircraft on radars of the time (and in PX it was generally an experimental setup). People at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries confused Boeing and Airbus with fighters and KR)
    Quote: Octopus
    This is not an innovation in the war at sea.

    Quote: Octopus
    who first came up with the formation of the shock formation around aircraft carriers, and not LC

    What battleship was formed around the attacking Taranto?

    Quote: Octopus
    Two waves of 12 and 8 aircraft

    Exactly how much was needed to complete the task
    Quote: Octopus
    The farther into the forest.

    Do you have other data?
    Quote: Octopus
    the amount of human resources comrade Stalin rose at least 1.5 times with an increase in their quality due to territories not previously covered by Soviet power, and therefore noticeably more developed.

    I can’t wait for examples of how Stalin’s newly acquired human resources fought without sparing his stomach for his ideas against the Western imperialists.
    In your opinion, only without banter, if there had been a war between NATO and the Airborne Forces, would all these allied divisions surrender en masse in the first hour of the war, or would have immediately hit the rear of the valiant SA? All these Czechs, Germans, Romanians, and especially Poles who didn’t sleep directly and saw how to quickly fight for the USSR so beloved by them)
  • Octopus
    Octopus 28 June 2020 00: 17 New
    -2
    Quote: Liam
    Why. There is an objective. On the then radar

    Excuses. We discussed above how the Americans shot down their own aircraft. For some reason they didn’t think of birds.
    Quote: Liam
    Around which battleship

    Release the owl, I’ll cash in on you in the nature conservation society.
    Quote: Liam
    Do you have other data?

    The fact that your assessment walks 8 million people shows that people were not significant. So your claim to Comrade Stalin is absurd. Since he could not be hanged during his lifetime, he should be judged by the laws that he himself recognized. The saving of the Russian people was obviously not his task, but rather the opposite. Effective managers - they are not always effective in the sense in which you would like.
    Quote: Liam
    All these Czechs, Germans, Romanians, and especially Poles who didn’t sleep directly and saw how to quickly fight for the USSR so beloved by them)

    The military potential of slaves should not be underestimated. Let me remind you that in the 41st exactly the same ideas were popular with one former friend of the Soviet government there. Not only that, I find it quite justified that the USSR’s rise in the 50s and 60s is primarily due to the digestion of European scientific and technological potential, primarily German.

    And at the expense of the beloved USSR - in the 68th they were built without talkers.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 06: 58 New
    0
    What was there in the Baltic States and Western Ukraine from resources? Industry was not there at all. On the West. Ukraine has never been before, and the ditching of industry is a long-standing sport in the Baltic countries. By the year 39, they had ruined everything so that they fled with joy in the USSR.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 06: 54 New
    0
    Well, in general, the famine and the demographic loss of Americans from depression and exit from there are comparable to ours. But why count them? There is democracy. Man is free. If you want - live, do not want - do not live. No one is forcing. We have totalitarianism - the terrible Stalin wanted and killed. Everything is all the same there. The result is the same.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 06: 49 New
    0
    Yeah. This greyhound tore to shreds of the Germans. Memoirs of the Germans 44-45 years 1 in 1 our 41-42 years.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 28 June 2020 06: 56 New
    -1
    Quote: mmaxx
    This greyhound tore to shreds of the Germans

    )))
    Liam is in the know for a long time to tell this line. The Great Victory of Great Stalin, about which I am writing, has nothing to do with the Germans.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 27 June 2020 17: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Taranto vs. PX is the First Horse against Guderian.

    This maxim would make sense if Taranto happened after PX ...
  • Octopus
    Octopus 27 June 2020 21: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Taranto happened after PH ...

    It's not about who first came up with the use of aviation against ships (a hint - this did not happen in the 40th year), but who first came up with the idea of ​​forming a strike force around the aircraft carriers, not the LC, firstly, and massaging naval aviation secondly .
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 06: 44 New
    0
    In general, the bet on the aircraft carrier as a scout was fully justified. And before the war, few imagined that the plane would drown everything and would not even allow battleships to shoot.
    Yes, and the invincibility of the Japanese did not last long. Especially when you consider what means the Americans had. They also massaged what was
  • Octopus
    Octopus 28 June 2020 07: 01 New
    -1
    Relying on an aircraft carrier as a scout did not allow him to perceive its strike capabilities. The Americans would continue to sit on their chests, but life and Nagumo forced to look for new solutions.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 June 2020 07: 17 New
    0
    This is not supported by facts. There were some exercises there before the war. Okay. But in war, the Americans acted as they acted. Aircraft carrier - the main figure in the war at sea. Moreover, the more of them, the better. And, surprisingly, the planning at such a huge theater was at its best. There were airplanes, there were scouts and attack planes too. The Japanese, before Nagumo’s strike, also did not consider aircraft carriers the main force. It’s better not to talk about the British. Only English obstinacy and courage could give results in the state of their naval aviation.
    In general, life forced everyone to accept new realities. The British including. They believed that the Italian fleet should be reduced, and not the port, to sit and wait for the heroic defense of its base. But there were no other ways. Well, Cunningham wasn't dumb either.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 28 June 2020 23: 38 New
    0
    Quote: mmaxx
    There were some exercises there before the war.

    Yes. As a result, the man who drowned for the aircraft carriers, literally and figuratively - Yarnella - kicked from the service. Dofiga smart is not necessary.
    Quote: mmaxx
    But in war, the Americans acted as they acted. Aircraft carrier - the main figure in the war at sea

    Forced. Beyond pre-war plans, realigning on the go.
    Quote: mmaxx
    And, surprisingly, the planning at such a huge theater was at its best

    No.
    Quote: mmaxx
    The Japanese, before Nagumo’s strike, also did not consider aircraft carriers the main force.

    If you think for 5 minutes, you might understand how stupid this thesis is.
    Quote: mmaxx
    Only English obstinacy and courage could give results in the state of their naval aviation.

    Yes. Conceptually, the British were in the middle between the Americans and the Japanese.
    Quote: mmaxx
    Well, Cunningham wasn't dumb either.

    And who called ABC stupid?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 June 2020 12: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Forced. Beyond pre-war plans, realigning on the go.

    At first, they worked according to pre-war plans - AB USN bit the Perimeter at minor points.
    And then I had to rebuild - there weren’t any of my own LCs, the enemy’s LCs weren’t showing up either, but the enemy’s AVs were running around. But the funny thing is that the AB continued to fight in accordance with the pre-war tactics, according to which their main task was to search and destroy the enemy’s AB. And the fact that the battle of AB - the initial phase (according to pre-war ideas) - did not follow the battle of the main forces (LC) - these are trifles. smile
    Quote: Octopus
    No.

    Oh yes ... one planning at Midway is worth it - at all levels, from the inability to plan the group’s rise for a “combined strike” to the mess with McCluskey’s targeting. smile
  • Octopus
    Octopus 29 June 2020 13: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    one planning at Midway

    Seems to have already mentioned this.

    I am still ready to forgive Midway, but no one is obliged to be able to fight just for the 5th year of the war in Asia. I am much more impressed with the activity already those same Americans with thereby TF38 at Leyte.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    continued to fight in accordance with pre-war tactics, according to which their main task was to search and destroy the enemy’s AB.

    Well, do not learn how to torpedo bombers, indeed! The battleships will somehow be lost themselves sooner or later, in extreme cases there is EM Johnson of the Fletcher type, he will figure it out.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 June 2020 16: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    I am much more impressed with the activities of those very Americans, with TF38 at Leite.

    Two fleets have an unattended strait. laughing
    Some worked on purpose (Kurita squadron), drowned the Musashi, and left. The target’s further state was not monitored (Dick Best, a pomnitsa, was not too lazy to lay a big circle and go on the burning “Hiraya” an hour and a half after the strike) and decided that the task was completed.
    Others decided that neighbors from TF38 were engaged in covering the landing zone - and scored on this matter, having engaged in the extermination of Japanese forces with absolute quantitative and technical superiority. And then they justified themselves that in the cellars of the LC after 3-5 volleys there were few BBs left.
    And everything ended predictably - while some chased after Ozawa, while others had fun with Nishimura and Shima, the third had to heroically overcome.
    That's interesting - but where were the patrols and aerial reconnaissance? Poor seaplane No. 4 at Midway, a pomnitsa, was spat upon from all sides - he didn’t fly then, he didn’t look there. And here the “best fleet” managed to sneak through the enemy squadron, led by a super linkor, and next to the landing zone! belay
    And if Sprague and company would work from another area, and Kurita would not meet with them?
    Quote: Octopus
    Well, do not learn how to torpedo bombers, indeed!

    You can learn something. Only there are no torpedoes. Well, do not consider Mark 13 (2/3 discharges - failures) as an aviation torpedo. smile
    Against the background of torpedo bombers, submariners were lucky.
    Quote: Octopus
    The battleships will somehow be lost themselves sooner or later, in extreme cases there is EM Johnson of the Fletcher type, he will figure it out.

    This is a dangerous business - to hope for EM. Well, how will they send William D. Porter instead of Johnston? wink
  • Octopus
    Octopus 29 June 2020 17: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    will they send William D. Porter?

    One way or another, and LK will record at his own expense! fellow
    Quote: Alexey RA
    if Spreadyou and company would work from another area, and Kurita would not meet with them?

    To whom it is, and all, I think, the battleship regrets regret that Halsey spent 2 hours, and TF 34.5 broke up with Kurita at this very time. First, it would be an epic battle of battleships. Secondly, judging by Novaki, the Americans would have been great hit, they went together for four, not counting the light forces. For some reason I don’t feel sorry for them.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 June 2020 11: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    What do you say? When did sick Englishmen use the top-mast coastal bombing? When did the Americans learn about this?

    EMNIP, the first practical result of the American surveyor is EM Hayashio, sunk on November 24, 1942 by Kenneth McCullar’s ​​B-17 crew in five passes at an altitude of 60-250 feet. And then the half-knocked out crew pulled the B-17 with two failed engines through the mountains to the airfield - and pulled it on.
    USAAC stand out against this background especially in those cases where they no longer had anyone to rely on. It remained a mystery to me which of the British and how (most likely through RNZAF) shared skip-bombing with the 5th USAAF, but this happened much earlier than March 1943 and the memorable convoy battle in the Bismarck Sea - Kenneth McCullar led his comrades to the top-mast their B-17 attacks back in the autumn of 1942. I can’t imagine the C- “fortress”, with its very modest frontal shooting capabilities and huge size, in the role of a topmaster, but it didn’t seem to worry much about the amers — McCullar would return to the half-burned plane and two engines were very familiar.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 29 June 2020 12: 24 New
    +1
    )))
    Quote: Alexey RA
    I can’t imagine the C- "fortress", with its very modest frontal shooting capabilities and huge size, as a top-hat officer, but this seemed to be of little concern to the amers - McCullar was returning to a half-burned plane and two engines.

    You understand that when a party with tremendous material superiority is forced to demand not discipline, but heroism from its soldiers - some people in the capital should be shot?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 June 2020 16: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    You understand that when a party with tremendous material superiority is forced to demand not discipline, but heroism from its soldiers - some people in the capital should be shot?

    Well, these are all respected people. You can’t just take and shoot those responsible for torpedoes from BuOrd - no matter how many lives their unwillingness to quarrel with profitable contractors followed by repeated laundering of their uniform honor (in other words, criminal conspiracy and sabotage).

    So we will not open the witch hunt in Washington. And just take the latest deck torpedoes, put crews on them just from schools, add to them army men who have nothing to do with torpedoes, we will hang torpedoes for them, which in 1941 gave 90% of failures, and in the first year and a half war - 67%. And send it attack 1 and 2 DAV. Without fighter cover. The crews do not have top links.
    Mikhalkov in the corner nervously breaks shovel cuttings.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 29 June 2020 17: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    You can’t just take and shoot those responsible for torpedoes from BuOrd - no matter how many lives their unwillingness to quarrel with profitable contractors followed by repeated laundering of their uniform honor (in other words, criminal conspiracy and sabotage).

    How to say. I have a complaint in this situation not to the board, but to Nimitz and the predecessors. How the industry works, he knew, an adult. He was obliged to organize tests and a military acceptance immediately, at the first sign. If the Americans had established such a manner - and history, for example, would not have happened with the M16.

    That is, if the claim on the topic “why Nimitz was not able to form the AUS” is really a bit of a kindergarten, then the question “Why didn’t test the torpedoes”, or, I don’t know, “Where is Saratoga going?” as well as “Why didn’t I set the line of demarcation between Halsey and Kincaid” - to him.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 1 July 2020 19: 49 New
    0
    When did the sick British use the top-mast coastal bombing?

    If sclerosis does not fail me, the Britons tested Skip-Glide Bombing in Middle East in 1940, I liked the efficiency, there was no loss.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 1 July 2020 20: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Skip Glide Bombing in 1940 in the Mediterranean

    Uh-huh.
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    there is no loss.

    To make losses acceptable, we need a tougher plane. For example Bofayter.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 1 July 2020 22: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Skip-Glide-bombing "in 1940 in the Mediterranean

    Quote: Octopus
    Uh-huh.

    No way.
    The first use of low-altitude bombing in WWII properly belongs to the British. On September 4, 1939, 15 British Bristol Blenheim bombers assaulted a group of German vessels near Wilhelmshaven, Germany. From an altitude of 100 feet, the aircraft crews dropped their bombs straight onto the decks of the ships — not skipped them up to or into the hulls. These first efforts failed to sink the ships because the bombs had insufficient time to arm before impact. They did, however, demonstrate the precision of a low-altitude attack. The British continued to use low-altitude techniques and eventually began to incorporate skip bombing into their tactics


    The second day of the war.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 27 June 2020 16: 31 New
      -1
      The triumph of the Russian idea in a single post laughing
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 27 June 2020 18: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      Dill Detected! Get him down!

      Have you tried to read old Soviet books? :)
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 27 June 2020 20: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Have you tried to read old Soviet books? :)

        I read, and a lot. And what?
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 11: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          I read, and a lot. And what?

          There, the apostrophe instead of "b" is quite common.
          Also dill? :)
        2. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 28 June 2020 12: 01 New
          -1
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          There, the apostrophe instead of "b" is quite common.
          Also dill? :)

          I have never seen.
          I did not hold books of the 20s-30s.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    27 June 2020 15: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    For installations with manual guidance, the horizontal guidance speed was 32 ° / sec, and the vertical 22 ° / sec, excellent indicators for the heavy anti-aircraft guns of that time.

    And now let's remember that the 127 mm installation of the Mark 45 of the US Navy, despite full automation, has only 30 and 20 deg / s. In general, either the author did not understand what, or the Americans in their repertoire (457 mm armored belts in Iowa-type LCs, yes).
    Quote: Engineer
    Thus, when attacking Pearl Harbor but "Pennsylvania", the crew commander with two sailors fired from such a gun faster than was supposed by the standard, a full crew of 15 people.

    In this case (100% mythical, since the writing is impossible in principle, which is clear to anyone who knows even a little bit how the gun shoots) we are only talking about the superiority of the gun over itself :))))
    Quote: Engineer
    Separately about the SLA

    And what are we reading?
    Quote: Engineer
    These systems with guidance posts with gyroscopic stabilization entered service in 1928 and were the first truly effective fire control systems for heavy anti-aircraft artillery in the world.

    but were removed before the war as obsolete
    Quote: Engineer
    Initial data on the target from the long-distance post was transmitted to the CAC, which generated data on the upcoming change in the position of the target, then these data were transmitted in real time to pointers to guns

    In the worst case, our LK was exactly the same.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 27 June 2020 16: 05 New
      0
      And now let's remember that the 127 mm installation of the Mark 45 of the US Navy, despite full automation, has only 30 and 20 deg / s. In general, either the author did not understand what, or the Americans in their repertoire

      I believe, I do not believe.
      In this case (100% mythical, since the writing is impossible in principle, which is clear to anyone who knows even a little bit how the gun shoots) we are only talking about the superiority of the gun over itself :))))

      With at least one constant angle and a supply of shells at hand for, say, 30 seconds, I’m not ready to reject
      You, with charming ease, chose not to notice more relevant information.
      During the last pre-war “cosmetic” modernization of battleships in 1940, these posts were replaced by more advanced Mk-33s, combined with 4,6 m stereo range finders and enclosed in characteristic armored “boxes” on rotating bases.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        28 June 2020 10: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        I believe, I do not believe.

        I KNOW about the total overstatement of the performance characteristics of American technology - this is an indisputable fact that you can easily find after working with their own reference books of various years ago. In earlier - higher TTX, then the sturgeon is cut. And I don’t know exactly about 127 mm / 25, but common sense tells us that the angles of HV and GN are too high. Well, such a gun cannot physically have a manual fire of 32 degrees per second.
        Quote: Engineer
        With at least one constant angle and a supply of shells at hand for, say, 30 seconds, I’m not ready to reject

        That is, the conditions are obviously unequal with regulatory.
        Quote: Engineer
        You, with charming ease, chose not to notice more relevant information.

        Up-to-date information would be if there were any data on the parameters of the CAC. They are not, and the very presence of the posts of the OMS does not mean anything
  • deddem
    deddem 26 June 2020 21: 03 New
    0
    A little clarification.
    The 37 mm in Brittany and all the other French battleships were semi-automatic.
    The French industry never mastered the automatic machine; the experimental installation on the Amiens sloop remained unique and one of a kind.
    Up to the point that their historians are still arguing which cartridge was used there, 37x296 or 218, or even 208 in general.
    1. unknown
      unknown 26 June 2020 22: 04 New
      +1
      But the Japanese mastered the French 25mm automatic machine.
      What prevented the French from putting this machine on their ships?
      The Germans on the ships also had semiautomatic devices. Although stabilized in three planes.
      But the fleets of small countries have distinguished themselves.
      The Dutch with their "Hazemayzery".
      Yes, and the Poles on destroyers such as "Thunder" and minefire "Gryf" were paired 40mm "bofors".
      1. deddem
        deddem 27 June 2020 11: 55 New
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        But the Japanese mastered the French 25mm automatic machine.
        What prevented the French from putting this machine on their ships?


        Formally, it is land.
        "not our product."

        The enmity between the military branches of the French was no worse than that of the Japanese, and in some places even more insanely:
        for example, all the opupey with G.1 tanks arose because the infantry was completely wary of adopting the Somois S35 cavalry "combat armored vehicle".
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 June 2020 16: 53 New
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        Yes, and the Poles on destroyers such as "Thunder" and minefire "Gryf" were paired 40mm "bofors".

        The funny thing is that the US Navy could get the Bofors two years earlier. At the end of the 30s, negotiations with Bofors reached the stage of demonstration of prototypes, but fell through because of ... commas. Due to the difference in the separation of the figures in Sweden and the United States, the Americans decided that the Swedes were asking too much for ammunition for demonstration - and refused to continue negotiations.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 June 2020 21: 03 New
    +1
    As a shipbuilder, I also read with interest about the Russian Navy in different decades. It just so happened that by the beginning of the Second World War only three almost thirty-year battleships remained in the Navy. Accordingly, built according to the ideology of the battleships of the beginning of the last century. And anti-aircraft artillery on them did not keep up with the times. And in the Baltic, both battleships were used as floating batteries and were attacked by dozens of enemy aircraft. No modern air defense system can hold back! “Marat” got in full !. At the Black Sea Fleet, from the middle of the war, the “Parisian” was generally kept in the rear.
  • Unknown
    Unknown 27 June 2020 13: 19 New
    +3
    Our pre-war naval leadership, led by Kuznetsov, poorly represented the modern war at sea, and especially in the Baltic Sea, which is very complex in navigational terms. Kuznetsov, who was in Spain, the main Soviet adviser on the republic’s navy, did not understand the growing role of aviation in the modern war, hence the neglect of anti-aircraft weapons in the fleet. Plus, teachers in the naval academy, former tsarist admirals, scared to the end of their lives by Tsushima defeat , always advocated an increase in the main caliber, and the installation of torpedo tubes, which even in that Tsushima, on armadillos, were needed as a dead poultice, to the detriment of anti-aircraft weapons. but who perfectly understood modern warfare and made conclusions, it’s the Kriegsmarine ... while our naval clever men put the obsolete linder guns and machine guns with a rifle caliber, and then removed and exchanged for dshk, the Germans have an old battleship almost the same age Tsushima ,, Schlisien, converted into a training ship, already carried anti-aircraft artillery As of 1939: 4 × 37 mm guns (2 × 2)
    22 × 20 mm, a total of 26 barrels, and if we take the battleships of a newer type, such as a schnarhost, and a bismarck, then the number of anti-aircraft barrels reached 40 barrels! the light cruiser leipzig carried 11 barrels of anti-aircraft artillery, and our Kirov, it’s a shame to say 4-dshk and 6-k-21 45 mm are outdated. here with whom you need to compare. dshk, of course a good machine gun, but with a 20mm gun you can’t compare it automatically anyway. to do with old ships, special air defense ships, like the same Germans with niobe, our admirals didn’t have enough minds. The war showed the professional level of admirals, so Comrade STALIN began to doubt Kuznetsov.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 June 2020 16: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Unknown
      Kuznetsov, who was in Spain, the main Soviet adviser on the republic’s navy, did not understand the increasing role of aviation in the modern war, hence the neglect of anti-aircraft weapons in the navy

      Yeah. Apparently, therefore, the Soviet fleet had 37-mm rapid-fire machine guns a la Bofors at the beginning of the war more than the US Navy.
      Quote: Unknown
      Schlisien, converted into a training ship, already carried anti-aircraft artillery As of 1939:

      That is, when we already put 34-K
      Quote: Unknown
      4 × 37 mm guns (2 × 2)

      Roughly equivalent to our 21-K
      Quote: Unknown
      22 × 20-mm

      Not sure. But if so, then still lost to any Soviet battleship on air defense with a bang
      Quote: Unknown
      the light cruiser leipzig carried 11-barrels of anti-aircraft artillery, while ours, Kirov, is ashamed to say 4-dshk and 6-k-21 45 mm are obsolete

      The armament of Leipzig - 6 * 88 obsolete anti-aircraft guns (this is not aht-coma-aht) 4 * 2 37-mm guns and 4 * 1 20-mm machine guns
      Kirov carried a 6 * 100-mm guns 6 * 1 45-mm 21-K (German equals 37 mm) and a 4 * 12,7-mm machine gun. What is the tragedy? :))))
      Quote: Unknown
      our admirals didn’t have enough mind

      So far, if you show someone a lack of intelligence, then certainly not the Soviet admirals
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 27 June 2020 17: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Roughly equivalent to our 21-K

        Can I expand the thought?
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 27 June 2020 23: 27 New
          0
          German anti-aircraft small-caliber anti-Soviet aircraft (part of 8)
          Article on VO.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 June 2020 10: 13 New
          0
          In short - the 37-mm German anti-aircraft guns did not have automatic loading, that is, they were charged like an ordinary gun :))) Like a 21-K. Thus, both artillery systems can be described as moderately useless.
      2. Unknown
        Unknown 27 June 2020 18: 54 New
        +3
        comparing the semi-automatic K-21 with a rate of fire of 20-25 rounds per minute with German assault rifles 2 cm FlaK 30 3,7 cm FlaK 18 with a rate of fire from 150-220 rounds per minute is ridiculous. it’s the same as comparing the Berdan rifle with the svt-40. even the twin 3,7 cm SK C / 30, a semi-automatic gun that was stabilized in three planes, had 30 rounds per minute, not to mention the initial projectile speed, which the Germans had higher. and we must add that the k-21 was a universal gun, like a 100mm gun of kirov, universal and not anti-aircraft, and these are completely different things. the term universal guns, coined by the enemy of the people of Tukhachevsky, who left the Red Army and Navy, without sensible anti-aircraft weapons. read shirokorada, competently writes and works with documents.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 27 June 2020 19: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Unknown
          even the twin 3,7 cm SK C / 30, a semi-automatic gun that was stabilized in three planes, had 30 rounds per minute, not to mention the initial projectile speed, which the Germans had higher.

          The technical rate of fire of the installation (according to the rate of fire of the guns) was 160 rds / min. In practice (in polygon conditions), it was possible to obtain 80 rds / min for installation. In ship's conditions, the actual rate of fire was 50 rds / min per installation.
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 27 June 2020 23: 21 New
          +1
          You confuse the 2 cm FlaK 30 3,7 cm FlaK anti-aircraft gun with the 3,7-cm SK C / 30 ZPU!

          Here with a similar weapon and it is necessary to compare the Soviet 21K!
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 June 2020 10: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Unknown
          Compare the semi-automatic K-21 with a rate of fire of 20-25 rounds per minute with German assault rifles 2 cm FlaK 30

          I compared with 37 mm, but not with 20 - why juggle?
          Quote: Unknown
          even the twin 3,7 cm SK C / 30, a semi-automatic gun that was stabilized in three planes, had 30 rounds per minute, not to mention the initial projectile speed, which the Germans had higher.

          in fact, in combat conditions, her rate of fire with 21-K is almost the same, and rests on the physical capabilities of the loader.
          Quote: Unknown
          and we must add that the k-21 was a universal gun, like a 100mm gun of kirov, universal and not anti-aircraft, and these are completely different things.

          Read Shirokorada less at night :) It is relatively good in terms of systematization, but whenever he begins to express his own thoughts ...
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 11: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            in fact, in combat conditions, her rate of fire with 21-K is almost the same, and rests on the physical capabilities of the loader.

            Are you talking about the trunk or the installation as a whole?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 June 2020 15: 17 New
              0
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              Are you talking about the trunk or the installation as a whole?

              About the trunk, of course. Although it’s more difficult to load a double-barreled shotgun, I don’t think that with small-caliber shells this will be critical. That is, 2 21K installations will be approximately equivalent to a single 37 mm pair
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 15: 41 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That is, 2 21K installations will be approximately equivalent to a single 37 mm pair

                Vague doubts torment me that the 21-k will give out "passport" 20-25 rounds for an air target ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  28 June 2020 15: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  Vague doubts torment me that the 21-k will give out "passport" 20-25 rounds for an air target ...

                  Do you think the 37 mm installation will give out 30? :)))))))))) Two seconds, sir, to reload the barrel :)))
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 16: 18 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Do you think the 37 mm installation will give out 30? :)))))))))) Two seconds, sir, to reload the barrel :)))

                    She will give out 50 for two barrels in ship conditions (on KRT "Admiral Hipper")
                    In field conditions, the installation gave - 80 shots.
                    Witnesses were representatives of the Soviet naval artillery group who visited Germany in November-December 1939.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      29 June 2020 09: 55 New
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      She will give out 50 for two barrels in ship conditions (on KRT "Admiral Hipper")

                      Within the first minute, it’s possible.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 29 June 2020 18: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Within the first minute, it’s possible.

                        In order for the process to be longer, the Germans introduced one or two extra loaders (on the barrel), and the loaders themselves hung pouches for 12-15 rounds, these de pouches loaded fenders ...
                        And the conveyor began.

                        And what did the red-wingers do to maintain a high rate of fire?
          2. Unknown
            Unknown 28 June 2020 17: 40 New
            +1
            you read the right literature at night, if for you there is no difference between semi-automatic systems and automatic, as well as between universal guns and anti-aircraft guns. and in general, you have transferred the conversation about the number of anti-aircraft systems on the ships of the USSR Navy to the conversation about military characteristics of individual systems, forcing opponents to argue with you which systems are better. This topic has already been, on vo there is no point in returning to her. before going to bed, type ,, light cruisers of the 26th project, and see what they had anti-aircraft weapons.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              29 June 2020 09: 54 New
              +2
              Quote: Unknown
              you read at night, the correct literature, if for you there is no difference, between semi-automatic systems and automatic

              The 45 mm Soviet and 37 mm German were not automatic.
              Quote: Unknown
              as well as between universal guns, and anti-aircraft

              I’ll tell you a secret - any anti-aircraft gun is inherently universal. Ask "aht-coma-aht" and the American 127-mm / 38 which was planned to be used including by ships
              Quote: Unknown
              .and, in general, you translated the conversation about the number of anti-aircraft systems on the ships of the USSR Navy into the conversation about the combat characteristics of individual systems

              In fact, it was you who transferred him there. And I just gave you a quantitative comparison which you could not master on your own
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The armament of Leipzig - 6 * 88 obsolete anti-aircraft guns (this is not aht-coma-aht) 4 * 2 37-mm guns and 4 * 1 20-mm machine guns
              Kirov carried a 6 * 100-mm guns 6 * 1 45-mm 21-K (German equals 37 mm) and a 4 * 12,7-mm machine gun. What is the tragedy? :))))

              You also couldn’t answer anything.
              Quote: Unknown
              before going to bed, type ,, light cruisers of the 26th project, and see what they had anti-aircraft weapons.

              Excuse me, can you read only Shirokorada? :))) My comments, where do I quote data on Kirov, are too complicated for your perception?
              1. Unknown
                Unknown 29 June 2020 13: 00 New
                0
                and yet it comes to you tightly. Actually, do you understand Russian? I wrote about 3,7 cm FlaK 18, and the fact that even 3,7 cm SK C / 30 gave a higher rate of fire than K-21.You should open your secrets at night to your wife, not to me. There was already an article about universal anti-tank guns on acting so here it is, and read it, you can debate what is better than universal, and as they say purely on tasks. for duck hunting, you can also walk with a mosquito, a rifle, you can get into a duck if you try, but smart people prefer a shotgun., Kirov, carried b-34 guns about which the reference books say .......... In 1940, the B-34 were not brought and not accepted for service. But the first B-34s were mounted on cruisers of projects 26 and 26 bis type (Kirov) without an electric drive and controlled manually, as a result, it was impossible to conduct effective fire at air targets. [....... it is written in Russian . how to compare with the German 88-mm cannon SKC / 35?. about k21 t that's what is written in the directories .................... In terms of ballistic characteristics, it was not much superior to 47-mm Gochkiss’s cannon of the 1888 model (manufactured by the Obukhov plant) ....... you can no longer continue, but still add ............... serious shortcomings of the gun (including its modifications 21-KM) - low rate of fire (25 rounds per minute), compared with fully automatic guns, and the absence of a remote fuse on shells, compared to Soviet universal ship guns of the same time, 76-100 mm calibers, so the target could be struck only by a direct hit, which at increased aircraft speeds in the 1930s and 40s became difficult to achieve. The consequence of these shortcomings is the low anti-aircraft effectiveness of the gun. So, before going to bed, look through the manuals of the Red Army artillery.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 29 June 2020 18: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: Unknown
                  I wrote about 3,7 cm FlaK 18

                  Kriegsmarine point blank did not see these guns until 1943. The Navy, with tenacity worthy of a better application, continued to use semi-automatic machines 3.7 cm / 83 SK C / 30.

                  Quote: Unknown
                  In terms of ballistic characteristics, it was not much superior to the 47-mm gun of Hotchkiss of the sample of 1888 (manufactured by the Obukhov plant)

                  It's funny ... blaming the anti-tank gun for poor ballistics. smile
                  Quote: Unknown
                  serious shortcomings of the gun (including its 21-KM modification) - low rate of fire (25 rounds per minute), compared with fully automatic guns, and the absence of a remote fuse on the shells

                  The Spgr L / 4,1 Lh 37 at 3.7 cm / 83 SK C / 30 also did not have it - only a self-destructive device, triggered by the burnout of the tracer.
                  And the German's practical rate of fire was 30 rounds per minute per barrel. At 40, and even more so 80 rounds per minute on the trunk on navweaps do not believe. smile
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 29 June 2020 19: 02 New
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The Navy, with tenacity worthy of a better application, continued to use semi-automatic machines 3.7 cm / 83 SK C / 30.

                    Because there was no alternative. And when they realized that it might not be at all, they turned to world experience - they adopted Flak-28.

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And the German's practical rate of fire was 30 rounds per minute per barrel.

                    As I wrote above, the most artillerymen in ship conditions "recorded" 50 rounds per minute for installation.

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    At 40, and even more so 80 rounds per minute on the trunk on navweaps do not believe.

                    The quality of NavVips as a "artillery guide" has fallen quite a lot over recent years ...
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 29 June 2020 19: 09 New
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      Because there was no alternative.

                      The Luftwaffe with their 3,7 cm FlaK 18 and 3,7 cm FlaK 36 look at the Kriegsmarine with bewilderment.
                      Of particular surprise is the fact that the 3,7 cm FlaK 36 developed in 1936 was registered in the fleet as 3.7 cm / 69 (1.5 ") Flak M42 - but only in 1944. After 8 years!
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 29 June 2020 19: 24 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        The Luftwaffe with their 3,7 cm FlaK 18 and 3,7 cm FlaK 36 look at the Kriegsmarine with bewilderment.

                        The Luftwaffe can watch as much as you like ...
                        To remind you why the 128 mm KM40 twin suddenly disappeared in the final Genisenau modernization project
                        Or why did the same bofors make Kongberg's arsenal? :)
                  2. Unknown
                    Unknown 29 June 2020 19: 16 New
                    0
                    one more .... I did not claim that the Kriegsmarine was fully armed with 3,7 cm FlaK 18, you carefully read what I wrote. and don’t need to retell the article of the vo., for the month of January 2019, I read it carefully. we are talking about the number of trunks on ships.
                  3. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 1 July 2020 19: 59 New
                    0
                    Semiautomatic at best 25-30 rounds per minute on the barrel.
  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 28 June 2020 23: 25 New
    +2
    The article is boring.
    But the discussion of the comrades of the Octopus and the Engineer read with great pleasure. good
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 28 June 2020 23: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Dr. Frankenstucker
      read with great pleasure.

      hi
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 29 June 2020 11: 03 New
      0
      Suddenly.
      I did not even think that it would be someone else to read except ourselves.)
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 29 June 2020 12: 13 New
        0
        In vain. Disputes and pickings of people "in the subject" in the comments are sometimes more interesting than the article itself.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 29 June 2020 14: 54 New
          0
          It’s just that our discass came out chaotic, with the introduction of all new entities. Explanatory analysis, we have not given. Sports excitement prevailed.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 29 June 2020 15: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            Explanatory analysis, we have not given. Sports excitement prevailed.

            As I understand it, aircraft carriers are meant. Given the nature of the dispute, a whale or an elephant, he did not suggest any analysis.

            And the analysis was done by the parties themselves. Both the British and Americans came to a similar project - AB with armor, and with a large hangar, but very large. Eagle and Midway respectively.
  • Reader 2013
    Reader 2013 29 June 2020 22: 52 New
    -1
    How can we discuss air defense shipments that turned out to be completely useless
    , helpless and how, the fleet did not produce more than one adequate movement
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 August 2020 14: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Sergey Karasev
    Nevertheless, the Germans managed to inflict severe damage on the "Marat" right in the base. And in the open sea they would just drown him.

    The open sea is much more difficult to get into. The Germans did not drown a single heavy Soviet ship in the open sea during the entire war.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 August 2020 14: 50 New
    0
    Quote: Citelle 2013
    How can we discuss air defense shipments that turned out to be completely useless
    , helpless and how, the fleet did not produce more than one adequate movement

    Soviet battleships and cruisers beat the most useful ships of these classes, the anti-Hitler coalition in the war. They all shot their main caliber barrels at the main enemy on the main front during the decisive period of the war.
  • misti1973
    misti1973 4 September 2020 02: 59 New
    0
    Maxims, what kind of damage could the plane inflict? These "fours" also have a large spread.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 11 September 2020 22: 55 New
    0
    Good evening, Andrey from Chelyabinsk!
    Thanks for the positive feedback on my articles.
    Nevertheless, judging by your article, you did not read them very carefully.
    1. The first anti-aircraft artillery in 1915-16. on our battleships was just a hasty improvisation. They put what came to hand, since there was no specialized anti-aircraft artillery yet. Hence the alterations to the anti-aircraft 75-mm Kane, 47-mm Hotchkisov, "Maximov", etc.
    2. When 76-mm and 63,5-mm anti-aircraft guns appeared, the anti-aircraft armament of battleships was standardized. First, they put a couple of guns on the aft tower (as the most threatened direction), then they added one anti-aircraft gun each on the bow tower. A pair of battleships were equipped with 76mm, and another pair of 63,5mm cannons, the reasons are not clear, but perhaps for comparison. Naturally, all the improvised anti-aircraft guns were removed.
    3. About the 37-mm assault rifles from the mega it was written that we decided to re-barrel 40-mm Vickers to 37 mm caliber to increase the initial velocity of the projectile, however, it seems that only a few experimental assault rifles could be made, which they installed on the Marat. , but removed very quickly.
    4. About the two-gun 76-mm mounts 81-k on the sections you have already been shown. Such installations were to be delivered to the "Paris Commune", the guns were even made, but they did not have time to deliver them to the ship. One of them was used in Sevastopol, and one was captured by the Germans, possibly in Nikolaev.
    5. On the "Paris Commune" in 1940, two MPUAZO "SOM" systems were installed with stabilized guidance posts SPN-1 with 3 rangefinders. True, the stabilization was primitive - manual.
    6. During the Second World War, the anti-aircraft armament of battleships was significantly increased, although it was still weak in comparison with battleships of other fleets.
  • Andrey152
    Andrey152 11 September 2020 23: 00 New
    0
    In general, it is surprising that the question raised in the article in the comments, one might say, was not discussed. Almost everything is a flood on very abstract topics that have nothing to do with the topic of the article ☹️