Military Review

Warships. Cruisers. The sea god really loves the trinity!

32

We continue the topic that began two articles earlier. That is, on the agenda we are going through the agony of Italian shipbuilders in an attempt to create a normal light cruiser. Some researchers generally consider Kondotieri of the first two episodes to be almost overgrown leaders, but here I do not agree with them.


Still, the Kondotieri of series A and B were cruisers. Very light, very flawed, but cruisers. Fast (doubtfully few) and very fragile. However, the armament was the most cruising, although there were enough claims to air defense.

However, when compared with anti-aircraft weapons, for example, the Soviet cruiser Chervona Ukraine or Kirov, it becomes clear that it could have been worse.

Although you can get to the bottom of speed too. Yes, measurements were made in greenhouse conditions and having removed everything that is possible. Real combat speed, as I said, was significantly lower than that shown in the tests.

Armor and survivability - yes, these were cruisers' weaknesses, and Italian about it navy the command knew perfectly well. That is why they did not stamp Type A, but tried to fix it by developing Type B. It did not help, as it became clear.

The road, as they say, is overpowered by the walker. Therefore, the following type of Kondotieri cruiser appeared, type C.


The War Department demanded dramatic changes regarding protection. The construction was hanged at the Ansaldo company, which, I believe, coped with the task with honor, because real light cruisers, not inferior to world analogues, were born.

By the way, it was the Kondotieri type C that became the prototypes of our cruisers type 26 Kirov. But this is completely different история.

So, the engineers from Ansaldo (a superfirm, since you can make candy like A and B ...) built two cruisers. Raimondo Montecuccoli and Muzio Attendolo. And these were already ships that can be called real light cruisers. Without any comparisons with scouts and destroyer leaders.


The essence of the project is simple, as I do not know what. Extend the ship by 10 meters, make it wider by 1 meter. The displacement will increase, according to calculations, to 6150 tons (Da Barbiano had 5300 tons), and the entire increase in displacement should be spent on booking a ship.

A very reasonable move.

Next, it was necessary to increase the power of the power plant. Up to about 100-110 thousand hp The ship with the new reservation still had to issue 36-37 knots according to plan.

Reservation It was a song, such a hot Italian serenade about how a swan was made from an ugly duckling. Or a goose.

No joke, the total weight of the armor was increased from 578 to 1376 tons compared with the same "Da Barbiano". Plus, on type C, the idea was realized to combine all the fighting posts and place them all in an armored superstructure having a cylindrical shape.

The vertical hull reservation was to have a thickness of 60 mm, vertical bulkheads of 25 mm, and a deck of 30 mm. Traverses and tower defense were also to be strengthened.

The head cruiser of the series, Raimondo Montecuccoli, was laid down on October 1, 1931. The second ship, "Muzio Attendolo", in connection with the introduction of some changes to the project and financial difficulties, was laid down only in April 1933.


Names, of course, were given in honor of the historical figures of Italy.

Raimondo, Count of Montecuccoli, Duke of Melfi (1609-1680). He rose to the generalissimo of the Holy Roman Empire, for which, on the whole, he fought his whole life. With the Poles against the Swedes, with the Austrians against the Turks, with the Danes against the Swedes again, with the Dutch against the French. I won. He wrote many works on tactics and strategy. He died of old age with his death, which is generally worthy.

Muzio Attendolo “Sforza” (1369-1424) is an Italian condottiere who served with Da Barbiano for a long time. The founder of the Sforza dynasty, which ruled Milan, also fought all his life and ended it, drowning while crossing the Pescara River.

Naturally, according to Italian tradition, cruisers got their personal mottos:
- “Raimondo Montecuccoli”: “Con rizolutezza con rapidita” (“With determination and speed”);
- “Muzio Attendolo”: “Constans et indomitus” (“Firm and invincible”).


In some sources, the Duca di Aosta and the Eugenio di Savoia, built a little later, are added to the two cruisers in the company. But we will consider them separately, since they were similar in appearance, but pretty different inwardly ships. Type D "Condottieri" differed from type C by a good thousand tons of displacement, which entailed quite decent changes in design.


"Duca di Aosta"



"Raimondo Montecuccoli"

There is a difference even externally.

What did the Italians do on the third attempt?

Standard displacement of 7 tons, a total of 524 tons.

Length 182 m, width 16,5 m, draft with a full w / and 6 m.


The power plants consisted of 6 Yarrow oil boilers and two turbines. Turbines of the Belluzzo system stood at Montecuccoli, and from Parsons at Attendolo.

The power of the power plants reached 106 hp, which ensured a full speed of 000 knots. At sea trials conducted in 37, Montecuccoli, with a displacement of 1935 tons, developed a machine capacity of 7020 hp. and reached a speed of 126 knots. “Attendolo” with a displacement of 099 tons showed 38,72 7082 hp and 123 nodes, respectively.


The cruising range was estimated at 1100 miles at a speed of 35 knots, at a cruising speed of 18 knots for the Montecuccoli, 4 miles, for the Attendolo, 122 miles.

Reservation That for which everything was started.

The basis of the armor protection was armored belt 60 mm thick from tower No. 1 to tower No. 4. The belt was closed with 25 mm traverses. Behind the belt was a 20 mm shatterproof bulkhead.

The deck was armored with 30 mm thick sheets, sections adjacent to the armored belt were armored with 20 mm sheets.

The conning tower had 100 mm armor, the command and rangefinder post had round armor 25 mm, roofs 30 mm.


The towers themselves had frontal armor 70 mm, 30-mm roof and 45-mm side walls.

The thickness of the armor of the barbets of the towers was different. The barbets of the elevated towers No. 2 and No. 3 above the upper deck were covered with 50 mm armor, the barbets of the bow towers (No. 1 and No. 2) below the level of the upper deck were covered with 45 mm armor, in the cellar area the armor thickness was 30 mm.

The feed tower turrets had a thickness of 30 mm over the entire height. Shields of universal 100-mm guns had a thickness of 8 mm.

When designing armor, calculations were made that gave the following picture. At a distance of 20 m, a 000-mm shell pierced the armored belt and the bulkhead behind the belt at cruisers with a meeting angle of not more than 203 °, and at a distance of 26 m - no more than 17 °. This inspired some confidence, but the calculations - this is the case ...

The 152-mm shell began to confidently pierce the belt and the bulkhead at zero angle at a distance of 13 m.

In general, meeting with heavy cruisers for the Kondotieri was obviously fatal. But it’s already not bad that, in comparison with their predecessors, these cruisers were not afraid of the shells of guns of destroyers. Already not bad, as they say.

The combination of the belt and the bulkhead moved away from it provided relative protection against shells with a small slowdown or an instant fuse, which would break in the space between the belt and the bulkhead. That is, from acronym damage by fragments.

The only thing left unprotected is the steering cars. Doubtful such savings, but such a decision was made by the designers.

weaponry


The armament remained exactly the same as on the Type C. Eight guns of the OTO firm with a caliber of 152 mm of the 1929 model.


Fire control of the main caliber was supplemented by the installation of RM 2 fire control devices. With the help of these devices installed in towers No. 2 and No. 3, it was possible, if necessary, to control the fire of the entire GK or groups of towers - bow and stern. Well, of course, each of the four towers had the opportunity to fire based on the data of their rangefinders.

Universal artillery consisted of all the same 100-mm guns in Minisini mounts of the 1928 model. The stern location is identical to the previous ship series.


But the small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery finally received the unfortunate 37-mm anti-aircraft guns of the 1932 model of Breda already mentioned in previous articles. Each cruiser received as many as eight such machines in four twin units.


The effective firing range was 4000 m, the maximum elevation angle reached 80 °, the maximum angle of descent 10 °. Ammunition consisted of 4000 shells.


The anti-aircraft guns were supplemented with the same eight 13,2 mm machine guns of the same Breda firm of the 1931 model in four twin units.

The torpedo armament of the cruisers also remained unchanged, 4 533-mm units, two twin-tube installations of the SI 1928 R / 2 type on each side.

The ammunition stock consisted of 8 torpedoes: 4 in the vehicles, 4 spare, which were stored near the vehicles in special hangars. On type D cruisers, the storage layout has been slightly modified. The bodies of the torpedoes were all stored in the same place, but for warheads they made special cellars under the deck on each side.

A very interesting solution for the sake of security. But during the war, hangars for spare torpedoes were generally dismantled from cruisers, since the torpedoes in them still remained a source of increased danger, and in the cellars for warheads they began to store additional ammunition for anti-aircraft guns.

Cruisers could still be used as minefields.


There were two download options, maximum and standard. Maximum - 96 min type "Elia" or 112 min type "Bollo", or 96 min type "P.200". But in this case, tower number 4 could not fire. The standard load, when the tower No. 4 did not interfere, consisted of 48 min “Elia”, or 56 “Bollo”, or 28 “P.200”.

During the war, German mines entered the arsenal of the Italian fleet. So the cruisers could take on board 146 min type EMC or 186 anti-submarine mines UMB. Or you could take on board from 280 to 380 (depending on the model) mine defenders of German production.

The anti-submarine weapons consisted of a passive sonar station and two 50/1936 ALB type air-bombers.

Aviation weapons were identical to types A and B, that is, a catapult and two seaplanes IMAM RO.43.

All cruisers had two sets of equipment for setting smoke screens: steam-oil and chemical. At the base of the chimneys there were devices (6 or 8 depending on the ship) for setting smoke screens by mixing smoke from boilers with steam and oil. They provided the production of black "oil", white "steam" or colored smoke curtains. In the stern along the sides were attached two chemical smoke generators. When they were turned on, a thick white cloud enveloped the ship for a short time.

Warships. Cruisers. The sea god really loves the trinity!

The crew of the ships consisted of 27 officers and 551 foremen and sailors.

Ship modernization was, but carried out at a fairly calm pace.

In 1940, the fire control system (KDP and guns) was supplemented with gyro-stabilization equipment. This allowed in a battle with excitement to fire the main caliber at any time, without waiting for the ship's hull to return to an even keel.

In 1942, the 37 mm machine guns of the M1932 model were replaced by machine guns of the M1938 model with air cooling, more convenient and easier to aim and maintain. Installations from the bridge were transferred to the place of dismantled guidance posts of torpedo tubes.

13,2 mm machine guns were shot at Raimondo Montecuccoli (finally!) And 10 single-barrel 20 mm Oerlikon assault rifles were installed instead.

In 1943, the EU 3 Gufo radar station and the German Metox radio intelligence station FuMB.1 were installed on the cruiser.

In 1944, mine rails, a catapult, and torpedo tubes were removed from Montecuccoli.

Combat service


"Muzio Attendolo." Let's start with it, because it's simpler and shorter.


The battle began with the cruiser in June 1936, when the Spanish Civil War broke out. The ship made a trip to Barcelona and Malaga, taking out the citizens of Italy from there.

On November 28, 1936, the Italian government signed a secret mutual assistance agreement with Franco, so the Italian fleet had to take on patrol of the western part of the Mediterranean Sea and escort the transports on which the personnel and military equipment of the Italian expeditionary corps were delivered to Spain.

The Muzio Attendolo delivered two torpedo boats MAS-435 and MAS-436 to the fleet of nationalists at the disposal of General Franco on deck. The boats were named “Candido Perez” and “Javier Quiroga”.

Entering World War II with the declaration of war between France and Britain, the cruiser was engaged in the cover of mine productions.

Then there were access to the sea to cover the convoys to North Africa.

"Muzio Attendolo" took part in the battle of Punta Stilo in July 1940. Nominal participation in inglorious battle.


In October-November, the cruiser took part in operations to occupy Albania and against the Greek island of Corfu. Until the beginning of 1941, the cruiser regularly fired on positions of the Greek troops.

From February to May 1941, along with the cruisers of the 7th division, “Muzio Attendolo” was engaged in mine operations north of Tripoli. A total of 1 mines and 125 mines were defended. The task was considered completed.


The second half of 1941 was marked by convoy operations in North Africa. We put it right - unsuccessful. 92 percent of the fuel sent to North Africa, as well as 12 vessels with a total tonnage of 54960 gross tonnage. It was lost only in November 1941. Plus three sunk destroyers and two damaged cruisers.

The year 1942 brought some lull, because Britain began to have full-fledged problems caused by the entry of Japan into the war.

On August 11, the Italians made another absurdity, canceling the attack on the Pedestal convoy, which was actually doomed, going to Malta and deploying the ships home. A crew of cruisers (Gorizia, Bolzano, Trieste and Muzio Attendolo plus 8 destroyers) fell directly into the arms of British submarines located in the vicinity of the islands of Stromboli and Salina.

The British submarine P42 fired 4 torpedoes. One hit the Bolzano heavy cruiser, and the second hit the Muzio Attendolo.


The torpedo hit the bow, tearing it for 25 meters. None of the crew were injured, but the cruiser was thoroughly mutilated. But he stayed afloat, the team was even able to give a move. The cruiser was dragged to Messina for repair, and then transferred to Naples.

December 4, 1942 during the raid of British aviation, the cruiser received several direct hits and sank.


In 1949, the ship was lifted and cut into metal.

Raimondo Montecuccoli


The service of this ship turned out to be longer.

Just like the sistership, Raimondo Montecuccoli began his military service in Spain. Patrol and removal of refugees.

In August 1937, the cruiser was transferred to the Far East, to protect Italian interests in the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war. It is difficult to say what interests Italy had in Shanghai, but the ship was there. Until December, Raimondo Montecuccoli guarded Italian ships, diplomatic missions, and consulates.

The beginning of World War II, the cruiser noted active participation in mine productions in the Gulf of Tunisia against the French fleet.

Raimondo Montecuccoli took part in the battle of Punta Stilo, but like all other ships, nothing was noted.


In October-November 1940 he took part in operations against Albania and Greece.

In fact, the whole of 1941 took place in mine installations in the Gulf of Tunisia, on the approaches to Malta and in the Sicilian Gulf.

Raimondo Montecuccoli spent 1942 in an attempt to stop the British from sinking transport ships going to Africa. Honestly, the attempts were unsuccessful at all.


In June 1942, the cruiser took part in the battle off Pantelleria, the only naval battle that can be said to be won by Italians. Although all the ships of the Allies sunk in this battle died either in mines or from the Luftwaffe. But yes, Italian ships have contributed.

When, in December 1942, British aircraft sank the “Muzio Attendolo” in Naples, the Raimondo Montecuccoli, who was also there, also got decently. On the cruiser, a bomb exploded in the auxiliary boilers. The nasal chimney was completely destroyed by the explosion, the right side of the nasal superstructure was seriously damaged. Fragments # 3 and # 4 were disabled by splinters. In addition, other bombs riddled the freeboard and superstructures in the aft section on the starboard side with many fragments, and one of them hit exactly the 100-mm installation.


Until the middle of summer 1943, the Raimondo Montecuccoli was under repair. Here, the cruiser received radar weapons.

Next was the Sicilian campaign, or rather, helpless attempts to organize at least some resistance to the forces of the allies, who began landing troops on the islands. The cruiser made two inconclusive raid operations.


In September 1943, after the armistice, the Raimondo Montecuccoli, as part of the entire Italian fleet, went to Malta to surrender to the British.


The cruiser was lucky, he reached Malta. Unlike the battleship Roma and the two destroyers that the Germans sunk.


Raimondo Montecuccoli was lucky. He was transferred to transport, and not set to rust on a joke. And the whole of 1944, the cruiser transported British troops. The final report shows the number transported, about 30 thousand people.

After the end of the war, Raimondo Montecuccoli was again lucky. He turned out to be one of the four cruisers that Italy was able to keep. But he was transferred to training ships and remained so until 1964, when the ship was finally disabled and in 1972 dismantled for metal.


What can be said as a result? The third attempt ... And in the end we got quite decent, and, most importantly, strong ships.

In a previous article, I said that the main nightmare of Italian cruisers were not bombs and shells, but torpedoes. The example of Muzio Attendolo is more than indicative, in my opinion. His predecessors survived the torpedo hit failed.

The combat path "Kondotieri" type C best indicates that the ships turned out.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Warships. Cruisers. They would build a bulk carrier right away.
Warships. Cruisers. Neither steal nor guard
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lexa333
    lexa333 25 June 2020 18: 33 New
    +1
    great article. thanks.
  2. Proxima
    Proxima 25 June 2020 18: 38 New
    +2
    Not only Raimondo Maiteccucolli was lucky, for example, the pretty modern cruiser Emmanuele Filiberto Duca di Aosta / Kerch got thanks to the draw of the USSR. Unlike the battleship Novorossiysk, the rubbish was not like that (built in 1911), and no one blew it up ...
  3. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 25 June 2020 18: 40 New
    +6
    In 1940, the fire control system (KDP and guns) was supplemented with gyro-stabilization equipment. This allowed in a battle with excitement to fire the main caliber at any time, without waiting for the ship's hull to return to an even keel.

    It seems to me that the source (S.P.) here was too clever when translating.
    Most likely the Italians mounted a gyro-vertical, which automatically closed the battle chain when the roll passed through "zero".

    Well, of course, each of the four towers had the opportunity to fire based on the data of their rangefinders.

    The 1st and 4th tower of rangefinders did not have.

    In 1944, mine rails were removed from Montecuccoli.

    Hmm ... The mine rail in the Italian KR were removable and placed as necessary.

    In a previous article, I said that the main nightmare of Italian cruisers were not bombs and shells, but torpedoes. The example of Muzio Attendolo is more than indicative, in my opinion. His predecessors survived the torpedo hit failed.

    It all depends on the location of the torpedo and the number of torpedoes hit.
    So this is not an indicator at all.
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 25 June 2020 19: 06 New
    +7
    So, the engineers from Ansaldo (a superfirm, since you can make candy like A and B ...) built two cruisers. Raimondo Montecuccoli and Muzio Attendolo.
    The author is fantasizing. First, the Ansaldo engineers built what was planned for the project. The cruisers of the Raimondo Montecuccoli type (Condottieri "C" series) were designed by the experts of the Committee for the Naval Warships Project (Comitate per il Progetto delle Navi) under the direction of Colonel of the Marine Corps of Engineers Leonardo Fea. They were advised by General Umberto Puglise.
    Secondly, the company "Ansaldo" built only one cruiser - Raimondo Montecuccoli.
    The second, Muzio Attendolo, was built at the shipyard of Cantieri Ruiniti dell'Adriatico in Trieste.
    1. Liam
      Liam 25 June 2020 19: 43 New
      +2
      Well, so as not to waste time on other mistakes for those who want to get acquainted with the detailed operational life of both ships from launching to scrapping, a link to serious Italian research.
      http://www.pietrocristini.com/incrociatori_classe_montecuccoli.htm

      There are tables with the number and type of ship missions, how many miles sailed, etc.
    2. Liam
      Liam 25 June 2020 20: 12 New
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      Umberto Puglise

      He has a very interesting fate.
  5. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 25 June 2020 21: 19 New
    +3
    This article is well written. good
  6. Usher
    Usher 25 June 2020 22: 21 New
    0
    Although all the ships of the Allies sunk in this battle died either in mines or from the Luftwaffe
    well why. And what are the mines in maneuvering combat? For example, the Kenttuki tanker was destroyed by the Montecuccoli artillery fire, and the Bedouin destroyer was also destroyed.
  7. ban
    ban 26 June 2020 06: 45 New
    0
    Roman, about the amendments it turns out much better!
  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 June 2020 06: 46 New
    0
    The combat path "Kondotieri" type C best indicates that the ships turned out.

    Compared to types A and B, it may have turned out, but the quality of artillery still leaves questions. And if you take into account statistics, then questions arise for the crews. After all, not ships are fighting, but people. Although this is the trouble of the entire Italian fleet (well, maybe with the exception of mosquito and underwater) yes .
  9. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 26 June 2020 09: 45 New
    0
    Roman began to do good reviews: +
    Without evaluative definitions of the author, reading is quite nice.
    Thank you.
  10. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 26 June 2020 13: 04 New
    0
    Thank you so much, Roman!
    From these ships you can really talk about cruisers.
    Cruiser - a ship for performing combat missions as part of a unit or independently. At that time, the main purpose was artillery combat with an equal-in-class enemy.
    So these first Italian light cruisers are able to at least somehow resist classmates.
    However:
    - the displacement of ships is unreasonably underestimated;
    - armament should be 4x3x152 mm, anti-aircraft 4x2x100 mm;
    - booking is not worse than Bolzano.
    Fear of “disappointing” Great Britain and a foolish craving for cheap economy created miserable underdogs who were not able to face off with the majority of classmates.
    By the way, the prototype of the theoretical drawing for pr. 26 was eventually selected "Duc da Aosta". They’ve got used to blaming everything Soviet, but ours managed to push three trunks into one cradle!
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 26 June 2020 13: 33 New
      0
      You have implicitly touched upon the problem of the concept of an interwar cruiser and the search for the optimal combination of combat qualities in the face of restrictions on displacement and cost. This is an interesting and very difficult question.
      - the displacement of ships is unreasonably underestimated;

      The “weighty” analogue is the British Linder and rough parity with it, although Linder is better balanced.
      The second likely opponent of the "goddess". Small Squadrons such as Penelope. The Italian is clearly more powerful. At least formally.
      I take the British, not the French, because it was with them that the batch came out.
      - armament should be 4x3x152 mm, anti-aircraft 4x2x100 mm;

      this is another very interesting question
      I do not consider three-gun six-inch towers optimal. The "big" light cruisers had no advantage over the Washington heavy cruiser. The Japanese, for example, thought so, rearming the Mogami.
      Ultimately, the Southamptons (4x3-6 inches) were superior in price to the County (4x2 8 inches) inferior in armament and seaworthiness and superior in armor
      To Kuchi, the Italians built very cheap ships. When converted to dollars, it turns out even cheaper than British.

      They’ve got used to blaming everything Soviet, but ours managed to push three trunks into one cradle!

      This is still not an achievement. This is adventurism on the verge of illiteracy.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 June 2020 16: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: Engineer
        This is still not an achievement. This is adventurism on the verge of illiteracy.

        Now the Americans are upset. On Nevada and Pennsylvania, they managed to put as many as fourteen 14 "barrels in one cradle. And on their SRT separate VN at the trunks appeared only starting from the last pre-war KR -" Wichita ".
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 26 June 2020 16: 12 New
          0
          The Americans fired with a delay for the medium gun. And do not gravitate to over-powered guns.
          Artillery Nevada after WWII gradually brought to a level inaccessible to the same R-s
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 June 2020 17: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Engineer
            The Americans fired with a delay for the medium gun. And do not gravitate to over-powered guns.

            Hehe hehe ... You overestimate them.
            In fact, the Americans also ran along the same rake: after passing the first SRT to the fleet with 8 "/ 55 (20.3 cm) Mark 9, it was found that dispersion during volley fire exceeded all conceivable limits, reaching 1800 m. And we had to reduce the initial velocity of the projectile and change the liners. Isn't that a familiar picture? wink
            And on Linkorovskie 14 ", despite their moderate ballistics, the Yankees had to introduce a delay in the shot of the middle barrel during volley fire by 0,06 s (which halved the dispersion).
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 26 June 2020 17: 40 New
              0
              I don’t know the story of American TCR. I know that with LC they all worked out eventually.
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 26 June 2020 18: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And on their SRT separate VN in the trunks appeared only starting from the last pre-war KR - "Wichita".

          Here you still need to share flies and cutlets - Triple Mounts, Triple Turrets and Three-gun Turrets.
      2. unknown
        unknown 26 June 2020 21: 42 New
        0
        Compare with the "Penelope" is not correct at all. The standard displacement of the British is 5220-5270 tons.
        Italians - 7431 t. Armor weight: 618 t. against 1368-1376 t.
        The Linder type is closer in standard displacement: 6985 - 7270 tons. But, where is the best balance: the weight of the armor is 882 tons.
        The closest vis-a-vis, both in standard displacement and in mass of armor, is the Frenchman “La Galissoniere”: 7600 tons and 1460,25 tons, respectively.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 26 June 2020 17: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      Fear of “disappointing” Great Britain and a foolish craving for cheap economy created miserable underdogs who were not able to face off with the majority of classmates.

      How many KRL laid in 1931 carried 9 or more GC trunks?

      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      By the way, the prototype of the theoretical drawing for pr. 26 was eventually selected "Duc da Aosta".

      Montecuccoli has a prototype case. At "Savoy" - EU.

      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      They’ve got used to blaming everything Soviet, but ours managed to push three trunks into one cradle!

      The Americans did this a little earlier ... :)
      1. unknown
        unknown 26 June 2020 21: 54 New
        0
        Suffice it to recall that close in the project for standard displacement to this pair of Italians, the Fiji type cruisers in real life turned out to be much harder: from 8530 to 8821 tons.
        Lost in weight of armor -1290 tons
        And during the modernization, in the majority, they lost one three-gun tower.
        Two series - sequels were built with three towers.
        And the standard displacement of the ships of the last series exceeded 9000 tons.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 26 June 2020 22: 13 New
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Suffice it to recall that close in the project for standard displacement to this pair of Italians, the Fiji type cruisers in real life turned out to be much harder: from 8530 to 8821 tons.

          Fiji has always been designed based on a standard displacement of 8000 tons.
          The K31V version accepted for construction had a displacement of 8170 tons, which is more comparable to the Savoys.
          1. unknown
            unknown 26 June 2020 22: 17 New
            0
            Savoys are redundant.
            An increase in the standard displacement of 900 tons yielded little.
            A “Garibaldi" is generally a difficult case.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 27 June 2020 10: 25 New
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              Savoys are redundant.

              Redundant for what?

              Quote: ignoto
              A “Garibaldi" is generally a difficult case.

              And what's wrong with that?
              1. unknown
                unknown 27 June 2020 22: 52 New
                0
                As they say in my favorite post-Soviet film: "I’m ready to share the grief Above, but point by point."
                Point one. Savoys are redundant.
                It is enough to compare the type of "Monteccucoli" and the type of "La Galissoniere". French is perfect.
                Displacement: French - 7600 tons, Italian -7431 tons.
                Armor weight: French - 1460,25 t., Italian -1368 and 1376 t.
                KTU mass: French - 1369,5 tons, Italian - 1426-1415 tons.
                At the same time, the Frenchman is better armed and better armored.
                That is, even in this standard displacement, Italians have much to improve.
                For example, abandon the second vertical armored barrier and increase the thickness of the deck. At least to the thickness of the Frenchman’s deck. And a little loading, increase the thickness of the belt.
                There is no need to increase the standard displacement by 900 tons.
                Point two. Garibaldi is a tough case.
                Without a doubt, the last pair is well-armed and well-armored.
                But, a little nuance. The last pair sank strongly in speed.
                Oddly enough, the actions of the Italian light cruisers were very different depending on their speed characteristics. The “non-speed” Garibaldi are mainly escort actions as part of the squadron, and the “speed” four are independent, offensive operations.
                Perhaps this theater is a special case, but here speed played far from the last role.
                Based on the afterglow, the Italians groped for their ideal in the type of "Monteccuccoli".
                It was worth continuing the construction of this particular type: sufficiently armed and armored, and most importantly, high-speed. Build this type of the maximum possible series, even abandoning the series "Captain Romani".
      2. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 30 June 2020 14: 05 New
        0
        About the theoretical drawing - a replicated legend. First, yes - they received a theoretical drawing of Kondotieri C, and when, at the stage of the sketch they didn’t fit in — they took Kondotieri D. Take and apply, and the dimensions are clear.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 30 June 2020 18: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          About the theoretical drawing - a replicated legend.

          Can you see any evidence of your hypothesis?
          Without "attach to the drawing, see for yourself" ...
    3. unknown
      unknown 26 June 2020 21: 35 New
      0
      In terms of standard displacement, this pair of Italians is almost close to the standard displacement of the ideal light cruiser, La Galissoniere.
      And by the mass of the reservation, these "miserable nonsense" surpassed the "Linder" and "Fiji", and practically did not concede to "Southampton".
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 26 June 2020 22: 16 New
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        And by the mass of the reservation, these "miserable nonsense" surpassed the "Linder" and "Fiji", and practically did not concede to "Southampton".

        Different schools of shipbuilding - respectively, a different distribution of armor in the hull.
  11. hostel
    hostel 28 June 2020 18: 33 New
    0
    If my memory serves me, then the theoretical drawing of this ship was the basis of the Soviet project of the light cruiser 26 and further 26 bis.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 28 June 2020 21: 57 New
      0
      Quote: alberigo
      If my memory serves me, then the theoretical drawing of this ship was the basis of the Soviet project of the light cruiser 26 and further 26 bis.

      It does not change ... Everything was so.
      True, we were too smart, and the "Kirov" sat "pig" at 0,5 ... 1,5 m.
  12. Iron_Ivan
    Iron_Ivan 29 June 2020 12: 40 New
    0
    Very interesting. Waiting for an article about Kondotieri D.