Military Review

Combat ships. Ratings and ... ratings

128

Naturally, your comments on both my format of fighter ratings and the article about Zero prompted me to continue the topic. Okay, I agree: the Zero is the most outstanding carrier-based fighter of World War II. And it stands out because not a single model from any country sent so many pilots to the next world because of its shortcomings.


But now we have ships, judging by the name.

And in the depths of the Web, I saw this rating.

Top most powerful battleships of World War II.

Let's just say: quite logically selected, beautifully designed, everything is delicious. No questions. Here's what the author Dmitry Tatarinov did:

6. British battleships of the King George the Fifth class.


5. Italian battleships of the "Littorio" class.


4. French battleships of the Richelieu class.


3. German battleships of the Bismarck class.


2. American battleships of the "Iowa" class.


1. Japanese battleships of the Yamato class.


Everything is good, beautiful, logical. Figures, numbers, numbers. Main caliber, number of barrels, projectile weight, number of anti-mine barrels, armor. Naturally, the larger the caliber and thicker the armor, the more powerful the battleship seems to be.

But numbers are not at war. Alas, if the war had been fought with numbers, then of course the Yamato and Musashi would have smashed the American fleet to shreds, and Japan would have won the victory at sea.

So let's take a look at this rating in terms of utility. Usefulness, not millimeters of calibers and centimeters of armor, is what should be fundamental to identifying any rating. Usefulness, that is, successfully completed combat missions, damage inflicted, sunk enemy ships.

And, of course, with minimal damage to yourself. Then it is a real battle ship.

And then the rating will be somewhat different.

6th place. "Yamato", "Musashi", "Tirpitz"



"Yamato"


"Musashi"


"Tirpitz"

Of course, the most useless and most expensive ships will be in last place. The winners of that rating are Yamato and Musashi. I agree that these ships looked simply intimidating in numbers. But in reality it (as they say in Japanese navy) is one of the three most useless things in the world along with the Egyptian pyramids and the Great Wall of China. Although the last two were more useful than the Yamato.

Lack of decent radars, frankly flawed air defense - and both super battleships went to the bottom. "Musashi" cost the Americans 18 planes, "Yamato" - 10.

These huge ships were not only unable to inflict damage on the enemy, "Musashi" did not even shoot once in battle. The Yamato fired several shots in action in Leyte Bay, but without much success.

Their German counterpart "Tirpitz" also never fired in combat, and therefore deserves to stand on the lowest step. Because he hid all the war in the Norwegian fiords instead of fighting. But the command of the Kriegsmarine decided so, we are not discussing, we are stating the fact of worthlessness.

5th place. Jean Bar and Richelieu


The French ships were all good. And numbers, and power, and beauty. And even took part in the battle. Each in one.


"Jean Bar"

The unfinished Jean Bar fought the Americans and the British in Casablanca and sank, the Richelieu took part in the Senegalese operation and even got into the British battleship Barham.


Richelieu

The ships, of course, are not to blame for what happened, but alas, the benefits from them were minimal.

4th place. Vittorio Veneto, Roma and Littorio


The Italians are in fourth place: Vittorio Veneto, Roma and Littorio. You know, of all the Italians cited earlier, though not for long, they fought. From 1939 to 1943. They attacked the convoys, defended the convoys, shot, they say, even hit.


"Vittorio Veneto"


"Littorio"


"Roma"

"Roma" was killed by German flying bombs "Fritz-X", the other two survived the war. So we can say with confidence that they were useful.

3rd place. "Bismarck"


Deservedly - "Bismarck". Yes, he was in one battle, where he died, but at least he took with him a ship of his class, that is, a battle cruiser.


2nd place. Americans


Americans. But not "Iowa", as in the original, which came up to take off the shoes of the killed Japanese, but South Dakota with comrades.

South Dakota.


Captured Guadalcanal, took part in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, was disfigured to helplessness by the fire of "Kirishima" and heavy cruisers, after repairs captured the Gilbert Islands, Marshall Islands, Makin and Tarawa, Caroline Islands. Shot down 64 aircraft.

"Massachusetts".


Participated in the defeat of the French fleet in Casablanca, damaged the battleship Jean Bar and sank the destroyer Bolognese. From 1943 to 1945 he worked in the Pacific Ocean, taking part in almost all operations of the fleet. Sank 4 more ships and shot down 18 aircraft.

"Alabama".


At the beginning of his career he acted off the coast of Norway, then served in the Pacific Ocean until the end of the war. Saipan, Guam, Okinawa, Luzon, Formosa.

This is called normal ship operation. Even in the role of a floating artillery battery, but still. The benefits were obvious.

But to the highest step of the podium it is necessary to raise those who, first of all, did what they had to do. If you are a battleship, then your duty is to sink your classmates, not merchant ships.

1 place. British


British, type "King George the Fifth".

King George V.


He drowned the Bismarck, covered the convoy, participated in the raid on the Lofoten Islands, covered the Allied landings in Sicily, fought with the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean since 1944, and fired at Tokyo.

Prince of Wells.


He drowned the Bismarck, then was transferred to Singapore, where it was sunk by Japanese pilots.

Duke of York.


He covered the Arctic convoys, spent almost the entire war in the North. While guarding the convoy, JW-55B engaged in battle with the Scharnhorst and sank it.

This is usefulness and effectiveness. They fought not with numbers, but with everyone else. Together, two battleships sent a very good German ship to the bottom, which was simply unlucky with the command. Moreover, when the Bismarck sank the Hood, the Prince of Wales was left alone against two German ships.

And the crew of the Duke of York are generally handsome. And there is nothing to say.

Was it weird? Well yes. Seemingly not the best, or rather, according to the Belarusian rating, the weakest battleships turned out to be the most useful. Especially Duke. Well, the Bismarck is, of course, good, but what did the Arctic convoys mean to us? And to protect the caravans in the Arctic during the whole war - that's what you want, you say, but the most useful from my, Russian point of view, was the Duke of York.

You can admire the power and size of the Yamato and Musashi as much as you want. Yes, they were quite ... impressive. But when it came to real application, alas, it turned out to be a big puff that took many lives.

The vaunted Tirpitz was no better. All the war to hide and die like a landing stage - and the point? Now, the point is precisely that the ship was to be used as a ship. And the British used their battleships, chasing them in the tail and in the mane.

The rating is, of course, controversial. However, it has common sense. Of course, Ferrari and Lamborghini are cool. But in everyday life "Corolla" is much more convenient. "Musashi" and "Yamato" were colossal show-offs. But the war was pulled out by such "weak" and unsightly "South Dakota" and "George Kings".

And the show-off went to the bottom. With very impressive special effects.

Combat ships. Ratings and ... ratings
"Yamato"


"Musashi"


"Roma"

Is not it?
Author:
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lannan Shi
    Lannan Shi 23 July 2020 05: 50 New
    35
    But the war was pulled out by such "weak" and unsightly "South Dakota" and "George Kings".
    And the show-off went to the bottom. With very impressive special effects.
    Is not it?

    Not this way.
    This is not a ship rating, but a fleet rating. That would have given up the Japanese Yamato for a couple of Dakotas. Yes. I know. Fantastic. Unscientific. And yet. Without adding or losing a millimeter of caliber or a knot of speed, the Yamato would become the leader of the rating, and the Dakota outsiders. It’s a little strange that the rating of a battleship depends on how many aircraft carriers the country to which it belongs to, on the quality of the aircraft on this aircraft carrier, the training of the pilots, and other factors that have nothing to do with the battleship itself.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 23 July 2020 06: 11 New
      +4
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      and other factors that are not related to the battleship itself.

      Shitty air defense, MSA, radars, Yamato's driving performance do not apply to him?
      And the 6 escort aircraft carriers that he did not sink, isn't it a chance to prove yourself?
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 23 July 2020 07: 09 New
        11
        Why substitute one for another?
        It turned out to be two DIFFERENT ratings, not right and wrong.
        Rating of the most powerful and rating useful according to the authors
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 07: 21 New
        23
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Shitty air defense, MSA, radars, Yamato's driving performance do not apply to him?

        The air defense on the LK was not "worthless", it fully met the requirements of the first half of the war, and before the massive equipping of the American fleet with boofors and shells with radio fuses, it was slightly worse than the American LK.
        The Japanese MSA were excellent. Driving performance was in no way inferior to the 6 latest US battleships, except for Iowa.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 23 July 2020 07: 48 New
          +9
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          before the massive equipping of the American fleet with bofors and projectiles with radio fuses, it was slightly worse than the American LC.

          )))
          Well, it's not so easy to be worse than the American air defense of the beginning of the war. The same design Air defense Carolyn take. 5/38 and Chicago pianos. And the Browning, where is it without them.
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 July 2020 08: 44 New
          +1
          why didn't he cut American escorts like a ferret? if everything is so great?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 09: 18 New
            10
            Quote: Tlauicol
            why didn't he cut American escorts like a ferret?

            The Americans naturally rushed to run, raising their planes. Their escort was covered by bad weather (squall) and smoke screens. The battleships had to dodge attacks from 92 fighter-bombers and 72 Taffy 3 torpedo bombers and destroyers, and later they were joined by Taffy 2 aircraft. Nagato by that time could not get more than 24 knots.
            The Americans fought in all respects valiantly in that battle, but the Japanese made a number of mistakes. But in general, you shouldn't compare Taffy 3 chickens - they were very toothy chickens :))))
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 23 July 2020 11: 52 New
              -2
              Tuffy 3 moved with the speed of a pregnant turtle under enemy fire. But Yamato did not sink them. Radars, Suo, speed, air defense, medium caliber and main battery - there are claims to everything.
              And he was not a lone raider
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 15: 11 New
                +3
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Tuffy 3 moved with the speed of a pregnant turtle under enemy fire.

                The "pregnant turtle" ran at 16,5 - 17 knots. Nagato could give no more than 24 knots. Enemy fire from a distance of under 30 km from the best pre-radar control system will not be highly effective by definition, especially when a squall and smoke screens cover the enemy. And even "Yamato" is contraindicated to break in a straight line at 27 knots under attack by dozens of enemy aircraft.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 23 July 2020 15: 16 New
                  -4
                  Well, of course, they are pouring machine-gun fire on him crying ... And although he has "good" control systems and air defense systems ... he still can't get anywhere. Therefore the best yes
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 19: 55 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Well, of course, they are pouring machine-gun fire on him

                    The sailors Chikuma, Suzui, Kumano and Tekaya disagree with you.
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    And although he has "good" control systems and air defense systems ... he still can't get anywhere.

                    Yamato achieved coverage from the first (!) Volley at a distance of about 230 cables. Of his first four volleys, two gave cover. The White Plains commander who Yamato shot at described the shooting as an artilleryman's dream. There were no hits, but this is no longer a question for the artillerymen, statistics work here. Maybe the Plains would have been crushed, but the setting of the smoke screen was mistaken for the death of the ship and the fire was transferred to another ... But the visibility was such that for almost 4 hours of chase Yamato was able to use up only 104 shells of the main battery, firing at least 6 different targets, one of which most likely did not exist in nature (fired at the radar, the target was identified as a battleship) Whether Yamato hit someone is still unclear.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 24 July 2020 05: 32 New
                      -4
                      And what about Yamato? "They shot us with bullet-meee-toov crying "
                      Yes, there even escort aircraft carriers managed to plant shells at the Japanese, and you say Yamato has a good SLA, speed, air defense, yeah. The statistics failed, yes, yes. What was he hoping for, counting on a meeting with Ch. by the Americans?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 July 2020 06: 35 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        And what about Yamato? "They shot us with bullet-meee-toov

                        Okay, as I've said many times, I respect someone else's religion :)
        3. CTABEP
          CTABEP 23 July 2020 16: 18 New
          0
          But because of the "cunning" shells, the only chance to send enemies to the bottom was ineptly missed by them. Well, again - the displacement is noticeably greater, and the air defense is worse. Well, they didn’t sink it in 1942, but in 1945, and for this time their air defense was no longer a cake.
      3. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi 23 July 2020 07: 41 New
        15
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Shitty air defense, MSA, radars,

        The design, that of the kings, that of the Dakotas, at least not better, or even even worse. The final ones are also not to say. so much better.
        One of the leaders in the ranking is the Prince of Wales. The composition of the group at the time of death was a battleship, a lincruiser, 4 destroyers. The linemen were carried out by the attack of 80 aircraft.
        The death of the Yamato. The composition of the Link group, a cruiser, 8 destroyers. Attack 400 airplanes.
        Fight at the Eastern Solomon. Enterprise group. Avik, battleship, 2 cruisers, 10 destroyers. Attacked by 8-9 dozens of aircraft, of which about 2/3 were attacked. That is, the number of drums involved is 2-3 times less than the Americans sent only in the 1st wave. Avik pokotsan, the cruiser survived only due to a malfunction of the torpedoes. Dakota, however, also flew. And not so bad. If the Japanese had a little better bombs, it would have come to the point of detonating the cellars.
        Total. Leader number 2 is drowned like a puppy. With the involvement of forces 5 times less, and losses 3 times less. The number one leader survived the battle only because the bombs pumped up. By the way. If the group as a whole, and the Dakota in particular had no fighter cover, it is far from a fact that they would not have sunk even with such bombs. And throw the Japanese into the attack of 400 aircraft, as it was thrown at the Yamato .... By the way. The first wave, in which there were 3 times more planes than all acted against the enterprise group, Yamato completely digested for himself.
        Well, where is the overwhelming superiority of the Dakotas and Kings? Crushed with a mass? I’m watching this for myself. Yamato sucked, amid the advanced Dakotas and especially the Kings? Something like that ... Not noticeable.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 23 July 2020 06: 56 New
      +2
      The author, who at one time conducted more than one rating, obsessively points to his methodology.
      But my personal opinion is that any of them will be wrong. For any technique.
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 23 July 2020 07: 46 New
      +9
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      That would have given up the Japanese Yamato for a couple of Dakotas.

      ))
      At the end of the Battle of Leith Halsey, in two of his fastest LKs (Iowa, New Jersey), he tried to intercept Kurita's connection. I missed it literally for a couple of hours, they say. And he would have had time - in a day battle, the Japanese could well sink both Iowas and turn this rating over. Could, and vice versa, of course, the Americans together drown four Japanese (except for Yamato there was Nagato and 2 Congo), who were not the fact that they were in a fully operational state, after several days of air raids.

      So all these layouts are pure coincidence. And the most useful of the Americans, according to this logic, were not Sodaki, but old chests. They fired the most, supported the landing.
      1. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi 23 July 2020 07: 54 New
        16
        Quote: Octopus
        And the most useful of the Americans, according to this logic, were not Sodaki, but old chests. They fired the most, supported the landing.

        And the most useful in the world then was Marat, most likely. 2000 main battery shells for the war. Here he is the real leader of the rating. yes
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 23 July 2020 08: 02 New
          -3
          Quote: Lannan Shi
          then there was Marat, most likely. 2000 main battery shells for the war.

          He got somewhere? Except as reported by the Soviet Information Bureau?

          As for a lot of shots - barrels were changed on some chests during the war. They completely shot the resource.
          1. Lannan Shi
            Lannan Shi 23 July 2020 08: 10 New
            +9
            Quote: Octopus
            As for a lot of shots - barrels were changed on some chests during the war. They completely shot the resource.

            And there was practically no resource. Tennessee has 250 in theory, less in practice, 300 in Colorado. Taking into account the fact that modernization took place before the war began, and part of the resource was consumed in peacetime, there was nothing to shoot there.
            PS
            So .... Marat is a champion. yes
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 23 July 2020 08: 35 New
              -5
              How much is 2000 divided by 12?
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 23 July 2020 19: 28 New
              0
              The Americans shot everything that was and went to replace the liners. Then everything was repeated. There is nothing to compare them with.
    4. awdrgy
      awdrgy 23 July 2020 22: 20 New
      -3
      They would have given up, they would have done it - the key word is Still, what the Japanese do not have enough By the way, I watched one "children's" transmission So the checker turns out to be faster than a katana (a little bit faster) And with the Germans, the same - on the chronicle, there are beautiful menacing proud faces and my great-grandfather (165 cm tall, just the driver of a lorry in the war "angry" broke the oak table with his fist, and he was already over 50, though he stopped drinking by that time, but still))) reached Berlin There are apparently some subtleties in everything this business that we do not catch
  2. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 23 July 2020 05: 52 New
    +2
    And the show-off went to the bottom. With very impressive special effects ... the quote is still valid to this day drinks
  3. mark1
    mark1 23 July 2020 05: 52 New
    20
    Tirpitz was a very useful ship - the defeat of the PQ17 was his merit, and later it was the cause of the Great English hemorrhoids.
  4. Comrade
    Comrade 23 July 2020 05: 59 New
    12
    "Bismarck". Yes, he was in one battle, where he died, but at least he took with him a ship of his class, that is, a battle cruiser.

    It follows from the text that the Bismarck was supposedly a battle cruiser, but in fact the Bismarck was a battleship, but the Hood sunk by it was indeed a battle cruiser.
    A battleship and a battle cruiser are two different class of warships.
    Earlier, even high school students knew this, for example, from the magazine "Modelist-Constructor", where there was a remarkable heading for its time "Marine Collection".
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 23 July 2020 06: 17 New
      13
      Tirpitz whom the Britons watched the whole war useless okay.
      1. Tugarin
        Tugarin 23 July 2020 08: 25 New
        15
        Quote: Cartalon
        Tirpitz of whom the Britons watched over the entire war

        I agree. How much strength did he pull on himself ...
    2. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 23 July 2020 09: 16 New
      +3
      The classification of ships is generally a thankless topic.
      A fast battleship can participate both in the battle line and in cruising operations. It was in the cruising operation "Bismarck" that he died. And by its genesis, it is much closer to the "Overgrown Derflinger" than to the "overclocked Bayern".
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 10: 33 New
        +6
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        The classification of ships is generally a thankless topic.

        That's for sure. But the fact is that there is an actual classification, and according to it - Bismarck and Hood ships of different classes
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        A fast battleship can participate both in the battle line and in cruising operations.

        And where does the class of the ship?
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        It was in the cruising operation "Bismarck" that he died. And by its genesis, it is much closer to the "Overgrown Derflinger" than to the "overclocked Bayern".

        The Germans NEVER planned to use their battlecruisers on communications
        1. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 23 July 2020 11: 05 New
          +1
          Well then, not a single battle cruiser took part in the Second World War. All of them were classified as battleships in 1936. So, as I wrote, and you confirmed, the classification of ships is generally not a gratifying topic.
          Battle cruiser (classic of the First World War) in the line of battle - victim. This is confirmed by the death of the "British", and the flooding of the "Lyuttsev", and the epic "Seidlitz". The battle cruiser in reality had two hypostases: hit-and-run (this is in English) or maneuver on your own and achieving a local advantage due to speed - swamp the weak in a squadron battle (this is in Japanese, but inherited in German).
          We never planned, but they used their predecessor with might and main (BC Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), as well as "Goeben" in the Black Sea theater of operations. But if (I do not like AI fear!) Instead of Bayerns and Mackensens they would immediately burn down Erzats-Yorks, and even with diesel engines instead of cruising turbines ... Perhaps the British would have sourly without carrier-based aircraft!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 11: 24 New
            +5
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Well then, not a single battle cruiser took part in the Second World War. All of them were classified as battleships in 1936.

            Is it? I don’t remember such a fact. Sclerosis. I would be grateful for confirmation hi
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Battle cruiser (classic of the First World War) in the line of battle - victim.

            There are tasks for which battle cruisers were created. In Germany, these tasks were the service of a high-speed wing with line squadrons.
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            This is confirmed by the death of the "British", and the flooding of the "Lyuttsev", and the epic "Seidlitz".

            The British were very unclear about the tasks of this class. The Germans ... I confess I do not see at all on the basis of which you recorded Seydlitz and Lyuttsov as victims. As for me, German paintwork solutions have brilliantly confirmed their compliance with their tasks
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            The battle cruiser in reality had two hypostases: hit-and-run (this is in English) or maneuver on your own and achieving a local advantage due to speed - swamp the weak in a squadron battle (this is in Japanese, but inherited in German).

            In fact, the tasks of the British LKR are reconnaissance in the interests of the line fleet and the destruction of the enemy LKR. We coped well with the first, not very well with the second. If you are talking about the Japanese BRKRs as the forerunners of the LKR, then they were not such. And in Germany, the LKR conceptually is a fast LK, with slightly reduced armament / armor to achieve the desired (and not overwhelming) speed
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            We never planned, but they used their predecessor with might and main (BC Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), as well as "Goeben" in the Black Sea theater of operations.

            Goeben was practically not used as a cruiser, and ShiH are not the forerunners of the German LKR, since they had completely different tasks. They were considered by the fleet as scouts for squadrons, that is, tactically something like our Bayan
            1. Victor Leningradets
              Victor Leningradets 23 July 2020 12: 19 New
              +2
              "And in Germany, LKR conceptually is a fast LK, with slightly reduced armament / armor to achieve the necessary (and not overwhelming) speed" (well, the devil knows how to insert a quote!)
              In fact, this is a technical solution to a tactical problem. Which one then? And such that in a squadron battle, a high-speed wing, either by order of the commander, or at its own discretion, attacks the scattered enemy forces, and, taking advantage of its superiority in speed, breaks contact when a stronger enemy appears. And only in the Skagerrak, Hipper was twice led in front of the Grand Fleet (they just drove through the ranks!). Climbing with thin (or not thick) armor on a closed line of dreadnoughts for battle cruisers is suicide.
              Beatty poured into a fight with an equal opponent out of vanity (Dogger Bank inspired!), Well, ogreb. The British battle cruiser is Helgodand and the Falklands. And the battle with equals is only if the homeland ordered.
              In fact, the Skagerrak showed that the Germans had no chances wall-to-wall, but to beat in parts due to maneuverability was quite. So they would listen to dad Wilhelm and not uncle Alfred, build battlecruisers with 380-mm guns starting from the "Hindenburg" - they would have a chance.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 15: 17 New
                +4
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                well, the devil knows how to insert a quote!

                Select the fragment of the comment that you want to quote and click on the button below "Quote" :)
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                In fact, this is a technical solution to a tactical problem. Which one then? And such that in a squadron battle, a high-speed wing, either by order of the commander, or at its own discretion, attacks the scattered enemy forces, and, taking advantage of its superiority in speed, breaks contact when a stronger enemy appears.

                No :)))) The main task of the high-speed wing is to set the crossing T to the enemy's formation, when he is bound by the battle with the main forces. In fact, the Germans also used their LKR for reconnaissance of the main enemy forces.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                And only in the Skagerrak, Hipper was twice led in front of the formation of the Grand Fleet (they just drove through the formation!)

                So he was stuck well before that, and a throw on the line of dreadnoughts - it was Scheer who gave such an order out of despair, he had to withdraw his main forces from under the blow. Under which he drove his forces already 2 times
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Beatty poured into a fight with an equal opponent out of vanity (Dogger Bank inspired!), Well, ogreb.

                Not that. The same "Seidlitz" at Dogger Bank was on the verge of death. It's just that when equals fight, someone dies :))))))
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                So they would listen to dad Wilhelm and not uncle Alfred, build battlecruisers with 380-mm guns starting from the "Hindenburg" - they would have a chance.

                I agree with you, but this did not solve anything - just ships with 380-mm cannons would have been slightly less unfinished than in reality :)))
                1. Victor Leningradets
                  Victor Leningradets 24 July 2020 10: 05 New
                  +2
                  "Select the comment fragment you want to quote and click on the button below" Quote ":)"
                  - not shit doesn’t work, pulling shells with hoists, caps - manually.
                  "No :)))) The main task of the high-speed wing is to set the crossing T to the enemy's formation, when he will be connected by battle with the main forces. In fact, the Germans also used their LKR for reconnaissance of the enemy's main forces."
                  - What kind of crossings at a distance of 60 - 100 cabs? - this is for short combat (XNUMXth century) and only in some places in Tsushima. And so neither Beatty nor Hood, nor Kamimura could see the solemn moment, they fought according to the situation. No, a battle cruiser is a fast dreadnought for off-line combat - exterminating light forces, eliminating outdated slow-moving ships and, in extreme cases (the risk is fatal!) Intercepting a threat from the enemy (and then only for a short time).
                  "I agree with you, but this did not solve anything - just ships with 380-mm cannons would have been slightly less unfinished than in reality :)))"
                  - When preparing "Der Tag" any means are good, except those. leading to defeat in the war. The Germans built three ships out of four laid down before the war. With the appropriate will of the emperor (excluding the year lost during the strike of contractors), they could have commissioned at least six in two years. 38 cm / 45 SK they baked like pancakes, and most of them were used for coastal batteries and ground forces. So there was a chance.
          2. Comrade
            Comrade 23 July 2020 16: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Well then, not a single battle cruiser took part in the Second World War. All of them were classified as battleships in 1936.

            This is not true. We open the Swede directory (opens on a click) for 1940 year and learn that the British had three battle cruisers during the Second World War.
          3. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 23 July 2020 18: 23 New
            0
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Well then, not a single battle cruiser took part in the Second World War. All of them were classified as battleships in 1936.

            2nd London introduced the term "Capitalship", but what could be hidden under this term (except for the main caliber and displacement) was not specified.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 19: 59 New
              +1
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              2nd London introduced the term "Capitalship"

              This does not apply to the classification of ships. Capitalship is the generic name for all classes of ships that meet specific requirements and was used for contractual purposes only. After that, no "capital ships" appeared in any fleet. It's just that if the treaty began to list "battleships, battlecruisers", then there would always be some smart guy who would call his new battleship "a seaworthy gunboat of the coastal defense of the overseas islands" and thus get the opportunity to violate the treaty.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 23 July 2020 20: 04 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Capitalship is the generic name for all classes of ships that meet specific requirements and was used for contractual purposes only.

                Actually this is what I mean.
                If the Washington Treaty clearly wrote about Battleships & Battlecruisers, in 2nd London there is only the abstract concept of "capital ship".
    3. Cristall
      Cristall 23 July 2020 11: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Even high school students knew this earlier, for example, from the magazine "Modelist-Constructor", where there was a remarkable heading for its time "Marine Collection".

      my favorite column and magazine Lefty
  5. Comrade
    Comrade 23 July 2020 06: 27 New
    22
    And here's a couple of pearls.
    The picture shows the American battleship USS Iowa (BB-61), and signed "Musashi".

    The destruction of the battleships Yamato and Roma. Two different the ship, and a photo showing their death, same.
    1. Romka47
      Romka47 23 July 2020 11: 59 New
      +2
      When I read, I also noticed that Musashi somehow looks too much like Iowa, but since he is weak in ships, I decided not to be clever yet and see what his comrades would write in the comments, seeing yours, and realized that he was not mistaken. Iowa has a very modern cabin, you can't confuse it)
  6. Eug
    Eug 23 July 2020 06: 49 New
    +8
    This is not the rating of the ships themselves, but the ability to use them. And to some extent literacy of the assignment for their (ships) development.
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 23 July 2020 07: 01 New
    12
    Uh-huh. All women are like women, and my goddess laughing
    Any rating is such a relative thing that believing them means creating an alternative reality in the depths of your brain, because everyone has their own rating, where their unknowns are included in the system ...
    -Ohh, Sveta is the best - she can five at a time .. -Yes, Tanyuha has such boobs that she has no options. - Guys, are you? Do you know Lenka the gymnast from the 15th apartment? ...
    This is the case with battleships. The imagination comes up with its reality in accordance with the established framework of application. The next rating is born smile request
    People, take care of yourself and be happy ... In your reality ... And I'm going to work hi smile smile
    PS. Although it is pleasant to dream that it would be interesting to command the Bismarck or Richelieu on the bridge .... repeat winked
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 07: 19 New
    15
    Deservedly - "Bismarck". Yes, he was in one battle, where he died, but at least he took with him a ship of his class, that is, a battle cruiser.

    I'm going to faint now :))))
    Roman, Bismarck participated in TWO naval battles, in the first he fought the Prince of Wells and Hood, and sank Hood. In the second - with Rodney and King George V, in which he died
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 23 July 2020 14: 50 New
      0
      I do not argue in any way, but the entire raid of Bismarck in popular literature is often presented as one multi-day, multi-pass battle. Such confusion arises even when reading Requiem PQ 17.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 15: 20 New
        0
        Quote: garri-lin
        I do not argue in any way, but the entire raid of Bismarck in popular literature is often presented as one multi-day, multi-pass battle.

        Strictly speaking, it was one operation with several clashes, of which there were many more than two, and periods of calm between them.
        Quote: garri-lin
        Such confusion arises even when reading Requiem PQ 17.

        "And, God save you, do not read Soviet newspapers before lunchtime" :)))))) In general, Pikul is somewhat good, he instilled in many people a love of the fleet, but he has a historical part ...
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 23 July 2020 16: 06 New
          +1
          Well, I read exactly when Bormental's answer was just in the subject. Plus mid-teens. No critical look. That's why I speak. From such simplistic stories, false axiomatic opinions arise. Changing them is difficult.
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 23 July 2020 18: 26 New
        0
        Quote: garri-lin
        Such confusion arises even when reading Requiem PQ 17.

        If we read “pop music” about “Bismarck”, then the memoirs of Baron Müllenheim-Regberg will be better than the “tragedy of documents” from Pikul ... :)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 20: 01 New
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          If we read about "Bismarck" "pop", then the memoirs of Baron Müllenheim-Regberg

          No doubt canonical
        2. garri-lin
          garri-lin 23 July 2020 23: 17 New
          0
          Pikulya cited as an example of forming the opinion of many. I read about Bismarck superficially. I don’t remember who.
  9. Octopus
    Octopus 23 July 2020 07: 57 New
    +8
    Mr. Skomorokhov in his repertoire.

    This is not the first time I've seen attempts to highlight the "usefulness" of LC, and every time normal people write the same thing:

    Japanese Congos, Mediterranean Lizzies, and American chests were "useful". For the same reason - they were chased into the tail and into the mane. This does not make them better or less better. Had Cunningham Seva - the Italian cruisers he would have sunk no worse, let Iowa - perhaps even better, he would have caught up with the Italians when necessary.

    The initial rating is an ordinary murzilka. Compared are ships that differ by half in displacement and by 7 years - in the date of laying (Littorio - 34th, last Iowa - 41st). It is not surprising that the beautiful Englishman and French masterpiece is below, and the strange, at least American and Japanese, are above. But for a bad idea of ​​a murzilian, we will find an idea even worse.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 23 July 2020 09: 23 New
      +9
      What should a shameful conversation on this topic look like in theory?
      1. Base. The new generation LC, of ​​course, should be better than the old generation LC. The old people are represented by very serious cars: Nelson, Nagato and Hood with modernizations of the 40th year (it’s like Colorado, but in the nomination "grandmother's chest" he loses to Nelson). It turns out to be a kind of inclined line, Nelson is the maximum of weapons and armor, Hood is the maximum of mobility. The line is not quite straight, there is some hump on Nagato - he is modernized better than others, perhaps the strongest old man.

      Thus, any new LC must be above this imaginary line.

      2. Approaches to the projectile: SHiG and Dunkirk / Strasbourg. These are not real LCs yet, they are more of a sketch. And we see that the results are encouraging - they are both faster than anyone except Hood, but compared to the latter, they are very well armored and reasonably armed. Yes, still weaker, but the potential is very good. With an imaginary modernization - rearmament of the ShiG on 380 (real project) and rearmament of Strasbourg with four-gun 14 "towers KD5 (altistory, but the towers of the real KD5 are lighter than the real towers of Strasbourg) - it turns out very nice.

      3. Honest Londoners. Bookmark until the spring of '38, 35K. This is Richelieu, KD5, Carolina. What do we see? Definitely above the line of old people - Richelieu. With his speed, he is only a rival to Hoodoo, who is definitely stronger in weapons and armor. KD5 is better armored and slightly faster than Nagato, but with some failure in armament. Carolina is a ridiculously accurate analogue of Nagato, and only due to the fact that Roosevelt managed to distort the cards and put in 16. Carolina's initial project is definitely the worst, +2 barrels to CD5, but no speed, no armor.

      4. Dishonest Londoners / 45K limit ships. Bismarck, Littorio, Lyon, Dakota.

      By the date of the bookmark, the German and the Italian go to step 3, but we will not encourage crooks. Here, too, everything is quite simple: Lyon is the best, but it was not built. The Italian is very good on paper, but was used extremely poorly, it is almost impossible to ignore this fact. Bismarck is faster, Dakota is better armed. Both ships are above the mentioned line of old men. Both are some kind of monuments in a bad sense - Bismarck is a monument to the dishonesty of the Nazis who signed the naval agreement, not intending to abide by it, Dakota is a monument to the stupidity of the Americans, who laid ships under restrictions previously canceled at their own request.

      5. We walk on all the money. Ships built without limits. Yamato Ave. 23, H39, Iowa. And the second pair of Dakotas wassat This (without the Dakotas) is really a new generation of ships, they simply cancel the old people. It is in this context that Iowa should be assessed and it is clear that it is far from being a leader. But Iowa was actually built (unlike the German and pr23) and developed seriously (unlike Yamato). In the 45th year (when the second pair of ships entered service), it is definitely the strongest ship in its class.

      6. What was actually needed: a ship that can operate in conjunction with AB and cruisers, that is, fast, with an emphasis on air defense, whose combat power is provided primarily by the MSA, and for minimal money, since the LK is a secondary ship. This is, firstly, Vanguard, and secondly, a German, an Italian, a French (the best air defense, perhaps, is a German). Of the Americans - only Iowa, but it is not about the minimum money even once.

      Something like that.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 23 July 2020 10: 14 New
        0
        They began for health, ended with Vanguard among the most expedient. laughing
        You still can't come to terms with history. And forget about the cheapness of this misunderstanding. It is almost twice as expensive as the King and is comparable to the Bismarck.
        There is no exact data, but from the scanty information on the network, Littorio is about the same price as the king. He will most likely be the champion of price - quality. You mentioned this parameter, but did not disclose it.
        In general, you did better than Roman, but insignificantly. Apparently, the rating concept is flawed in essence.
        Let's replace ratings with the principle that each weapon must be in the right place at the right time with the right conditions. In other words, the road is a spoon for dinner.
        The Dakotas and Washington DCs succeeded, but the Dakotas have childhood illness with failing electrical equipment, which was not eliminated until 1942 inclusive. Washington is so-so.
        The Iowas had time for a nodding analysis. Past
        Yamato is a "floating hotel for silly admirals". (c) Japanese sailors. His obituary - did not know, did not participate, went out for a walk, kicked the crowd
        The Italians had time, they are quite good technically, although not without questions. Good contenders for leaders.
        Richelieu is good on paper. You can put them high with the Italians
        The kings made it, but they are just weak and bad. Troechniki
        The Germans were in time. And they are individually stronger than any opponent in the Atlantic. Exactly what is needed. Only the third brother-sister was not enough to finally break the dance floor. Alas, there is no perfect weapon. But their leadership is fully justified in my opinion.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 10: 35 New
          +4
          Quote: Engineer
          And forget about the cheapness of this misunderstanding. It is almost twice as expensive as the King and is comparable to the Bismarck.

          You should never compare the cost of ships from different countries from this perspective. Otherwise, you will come to similar, completely delusional conclusions.
          By the way, have you made an inflation adjustment for Vanguard?
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 23 July 2020 11: 04 New
            -3
            1. Never write in such a categorical tone with the indispensable puffing of your cheeks. Otherwise, you will simply be ignored.
            2. Done
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 11: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              ... Never write in such a categorical tone with the indispensable puffing of your cheeks. Otherwise, you will simply be ignored.

              Yes, I will not be upset :)
              Quote: Engineer
              2. Done

              I'll check in the evening :)
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 23 July 2020 11: 28 New
                +2
                Andrew, let's conclude a truce or armed neutrality for now. There is no desire to doggy with anyone. But leave these phrases "delirium" and "nonsense" please
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 15: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Andrew, let's conclude a truce or armed neutrality for now.

                  Good. But let's figure out the cost anyway. So far I just found this (Kofman):
                  "The total cost of the last British battleship was 11,53 million pounds (this does not include the original price of four 381-mm turrets.) Is this a lot or a little? Formally, almost double the price of the battle cruiser Hood, built a quarter of a century earlier." However, taking into account the inflation of the British currency and a significant rise in the cost of equipment, the cost of the Vanguard seems quite acceptable: in comparable prices it is half the cost of the Bismarck, which is clearly inferior to the Englishman in electronics and air defense capabilities. cheaper than the smaller and less efficient King George V. "
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 23 July 2020 15: 41 New
                    0
                    I wrote about the cost below to Octopus
                  2. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 23 July 2020 19: 43 New
                    +1
                    Still, it is stupid to count this money. How to evaluate the air conditioning system at Vanguard? And it costs money. Radio electronics, which was not really before the war. And so on, etc. In the end, some kind of ship was built rhythmically and according to the plan, and some was built, then stopped, made, altered. The nearest metallurgical plant switched to the production of metal for tanks (yes, at least something), and the ship had to be transported from afar. Fuel for industry has risen in price due to the war. And many, many things. A bunch of components that we don't even know about. It's like a family budget. There is money now and immediately - you can save it. Not in the right amount - it starts kroilovo. As a result, everything turns out to be more expensive.
        2. Engineer
          Engineer 23 July 2020 11: 22 New
          +1
          almost twice as expensive as king

          I am improving, nevertheless, one and a half times. I wrote from memory
        3. Octopus
          Octopus 23 July 2020 13: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          finished with Vanguard among the most appropriate

          Initially, Vanguard was not there, but I invented a separate paragraph to put it, otherwise you would be offended. laughing

          Yes, appropriate. The WWII battleship is not a ship of the line. This is some kind of big boss of the strike team with CD, EM and optional AB. This position is suddenly approached by German bandits, completely made for the wrong purpose, and the slow Dakotas are much worse suited.
          Quote: Engineer
          forget about the cheapness of this misunderstanding

          Radars were worth their weight in gold at the time; Vanguard had a lot of them. But the hardware is standard or second-hand ..
          Quote: Engineer
          Littorio is about the same price as the king. He will most likely be the champion of price - quality

          As a project - I agree, as a real ship - no, it was too bad there with the quality in hardware. Not so much about the ship itself as about shells, gunpowder, radars, all these stories.
          Quote: Engineer
          Apparently, the rating concept is flawed in essence.

          Certainly. But I have tried to highlight comparable groups. CD5 and Iowa are incomparable.
          Quote: Engineer
          road spoon for dinner.

          And they themselves immediately got into it.
          Quote: Engineer
          Alas, there is no perfect weapon. But their leadership is fully justified in my opinion.

          Thus, you have proven that signing agreements and then breaking them is a great idea. Well, it is. On the other hand, the Americans have proven that if you can build ships when everyone else is already at war, that's fine too. Again, so-so news.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 23 July 2020 13: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Engineer
            forget about the cheapness of this misunderstanding
            Radars were worth their weight in gold at the time; Vanguard had a lot of them. But iron - standard or second-hand.

            Usually, the design (estimated) cost is always indicated. Vanguard was built under the 1940 emergency program. All these options appeared, mostly much later, during construction. What is the real price of all this can hardly be said with any certainty.
            As a project - I agree, as a real ship - no,

            I have a strong suspicion that Littorio is better than word of mouth. Vittorio Veneto at Spartivento fired very closely and accurately enough for 27 km (from memory)
            And they themselves immediately got into it.

            What is this about? Tirpitz and Bismarck are good right here and now. No ratings. Contribution only
            You've proven that signing contracts and then breaking them is a great idea. Well, it is. On the other hand, the Americans have proven that if you can build ships when everyone else is already at war, that's fine too. Again, so-so news.

            Okay, now say B and name in what real place there are "wonderful Englishmen" (c) who can neither one nor the other.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 23 July 2020 14: 40 New
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              What is the real price of all this can hardly be said with any certainty.

              )))
              You are cheating. Standard vehicles, standard auxiliary armament, main battery from a landfill. So all that Vanguard is more expensive is his bonuses to CD5 in terms of air defense and fire control, if they put it all on CD5 - it would be the same.
              And initially - for iron - it cannot be more expensive.
              Quote: Engineer
              I have a strong suspicion that Littorio is better than word of mouth.

              Well, this is not serious.

              Another thing is that I wrote in some thread that if the Americans did exemplary ADS after the war, then it was just Littorio that they had to take for reinforcement, and their SODak should be written off. Italian ships without Italians - this is already interesting.
              Quote: Engineer
              Okay, now tell B and name in what real place are the "beautiful English" (c)

              And I wrote. Well armored and speedy chests, better than American, worse than French. If the French managed to make a ship that was not inferior to the "cheaters" in 35K, then KD5, perhaps, was inferior.

              In your own way, you are right. The Germans managed to cheat on themselves a ship that is individually stronger than any potential enemy. You can do that too. On the other hand, he is individually stronger one any opponent. How it really went - both Bismarck, and Italians, and both Yamato checked on themselves.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 23 July 2020 15: 39 New
                0
                You cheat

                Chief Ostap Bender said the site. A cocktail of knowledge and half-knowledge and aplomb)
                From what is on the network
                Vanguard Cost: £ 11,530,503 1940 program
                King £ 7,393,134 1936 goals program
                See the depreciation of the pound here
                http://inflation.iamkate.com/
                The site calculator gives 1.09 for 36-40 years.
                Remember that the design cost is usually indicated.
                On the initial the project for which the estimate is being made, the composition of the radar and anti-aircraft weapons is almost identical.
                Which GC from the landfill? New front plate, slotted armor caps, new tower rangefinders, new tower roofs, unbalance corrections and new hydraulic drives.
                Why is Vanguard more expensive? Yes, obviously.
                Bigger dimensions, more armor, especially anti-fragmentation, more compartments, deeper PTZ, forced turbines. One of the most important innovations is a full-fledged duplication of the GCMS. Finally, there is no shame in front of krauts. All of this was already included in the original draft.
                Have you read Kofman for a long time?

                Well, this is not serious.

                I wrote a fact. Covering Manchester from 27 km is very good.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 23 July 2020 16: 24 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Chief Ostap Bender said the site.

                  By your statement, you devalue the work of many people who fight for this title every day.

                  By the way. You weren't taught to separate criticism of theses and criticism of the opponent as a whole? This is me about the difference between
                  .
                  Quote: Octopus
                  )))
                  You are cheating.

                  и
                  Quote: Engineer
                  a cocktail of knowledge and half-knowledge and aplomb

                  Quote: Engineer
                  Vanguard Cost: £ 11,530,503 1940 program
                  King £ 7,393,134 1936 goals program

                  Are you sure you know the details? Does the 7,4 price include the development of a new main battery, new station wagons specifically for it, and new shells? And the price of 11,5 is definitely not the final price of the ship for the 46th year?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Why is Vanguard more expensive? Yes, obviously.

                  Obviously. A quarter more armor, a fundamentally different control system, air defense and electronics.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Covering Manchester from 27 km is very good.

                  Randomness
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 23 July 2020 16: 39 New
                    +1
                    By the way. You weren't taught to separate criticism of theses and criticism of the opponent as a whole?

                    I bent over here. I apologize if you hurt
                    Are you sure you know the details? Does the 7,4 price include the development of a new main battery, new station wagons specifically for it, and new shells? And the price of 11,5 is definitely not the final price of the ship for the 46th year?

                    I am not aware of the details, I specifically made a reservation that "the project price is usually indicated"
                    Did the British include the development price in the price of the ship?
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 23 July 2020 17: 40 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Engineer
                      I bent over here

                      OK.
                      Quote: Engineer
                      "project price is usually indicated"
                      Did the British include the development price in the price of the ship?

                      I do not know. This figure is indicated as the final cost in the ruvik with a reference to the original English source, which is not in electronic form. But this situation seems to me quite logical.
                      1. Engineer
                        Engineer 23 July 2020 18: 37 New
                        0
                        I'm sure not
                        Here's to the Dreadnought
                        The ship's construction cost £ 1,785,683, broken down as follows: hull £ 844,784, propelling and other machinery £ 319,585, hull fittings, gun mountings, and torpedo tubes £ 390,145, incidental charges £ 117,969, guns £ 113,200. [52] Other sources however state £ 1,783,883. [53] and £ 1,672,483. [20]

                        As you can see, there is no place for R&D at all. Link to the same Burt RA
                  2. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 23 July 2020 18: 51 New
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Randomness

                    The Italians themselves thought something like this
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 23 July 2020 23: 32 New
                      0
                      )))
                      First, I don't understand Italian. Secondly, this is not obvious to everyone, but the effective range is a characteristic, first of all, of the FCS, and not of the weapon. The Italians have a very interesting MSA on paper, but they didn't really go with radars, so if you take the American 45th year as an example of an MSA, then, in general, there is nothing to talk about.

                      By the way, the historical information on the Italians is surprisingly well done with potatoes.

                      https://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:World_of_Warships

                      PS. The Italian air defense is simply phenomenal for the 30s. Americans cry quietly in the corner.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 23 July 2020 23: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        итальянский

                        The first column is the maximum distance of opening fire with good visibility. The second column is "average distance". The third column is the recommended distance to start the battle.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        By the way

                        http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-50_m1934.php
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 23 July 2020 23: 44 New
                        0
                        Thank you.
                        Quote: Liam
                        http://www.navweaps.com/

                        )))
                        Thank you, I know this resource. Again. Kilograms-meters and the elevation angle are certainly interesting, but in a real situation they did not decide. Initially, we talked about whether the GC characterizes Littorio one covering the Englishman in one battle. In my opinion, no. Nor am I going to extol the British for shooting at Calabria or the Germans for the Glories.
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 23 July 2020 23: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        cover one

                        Quote: Octopus
                        one fight

                        Bismarck Hood?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        does characterize
                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 23 July 2020 23: 50 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Liam
                        Bismarck Hood?

                        I do not know. But Hood's case is generally a canonical case of luck. As well as then the torpedo in the rudders. The impression that the gods decided to somehow entertain themselves.
                    2. Liam
                      Liam 24 July 2020 00: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      I know this resource

                      But this one is unlikely)
                      http://www.ocean4future.org/archives/33243
                      Here (though in Italian) you will find a lot about the opening distances for which Italian ships of different classes trained (by the way, these distances were the same for the North Sea, for the Mediterranean - others), recommended and also real in various battles. There is also the dispersion of shells of one volley at different distances. And their comparison with the same Japanese under Leyte. And also what problems were due to the fact that the industry produced shells with a weight tolerance of 1% and how this was reflected in shooting at different distances, etc. and etc. technical boring).
                      Below there is a link to several monographs by specialists specifically on the shooting of the navy in the interwar and war period. But I am not such a big fan and have not read it.
                    3. Octopus
                      Octopus 24 July 2020 00: 13 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      But this one is unlikely)

                      Yeah.

                      So far, I can say that Cunningham's disgustingly pleased face offends Italians. Didyvoyovale!
                    4. Liam
                      Liam 24 July 2020 00: 23 New
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Cunningham's muzzle insults

                      Ialyans respect their opponents)
                      It says that, according to Kunningham's recollections, the LMS of the Italian battleships was at the level. Very good accuracy in direction, but problems with accuracy, caused mainly by the different weight of the shells. The notorious tolerance of 1%. The Italians, when they received shells on the ship, weighed them and sorted that each volley would be shells of the same weight)
                    5. Octopus
                      Octopus 24 July 2020 02: 05 New
                      0
                      Quote: Liam
                      http://www.ocean4future.org/archives/33243

                      It's contradictory. Interesting facts, but stories that the low accuracy of Italian volleys - it is even better - just pathetic.
                      But the main thing, of course
                      Nella pratica questo non successe quasi mai; a Punta Stilo si sparò tra i 26000 ei 24000 metri, a Capo Teulada tra i 29500 ei 33500 metri ea Gaudo, l'ammiraglio Iachino, scrisse che l'azione di fuoco avvenne a 23000 metri (anche se gli inglesi scrivono 29000 metri). Da questo appare che le azioni di fuoco avvennero a distanze al di fuori da quelle per cui le armi erano state progettate, secondo previsioni razionali condivise in tutto il mondo, e che poi si volle addossare ai materiali la mancanza di risultati cheut era invece dov un uso errato. Tale variazione aveva un razionale: ad esempio, a Punta Stilo, le distanze furono ridotte a distanze ragionevoli. I colpi a segno non mancarono durante la seconda Sirte (tra i 21700 metri ei 9000) e la battaglia di Pantelleria (tra i 20000 ei 4500 metri).


                      Cowards don't need battleships.
                    6. Liam
                      Liam 24 July 2020 19: 26 New
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Cowards

                      We sing glory to the madness of the brave!
                      The madness of the brave is the wisdom of life! O brave Falcon! You bled out in battle with enemies
                      .
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 23 July 2020 20: 23 New
      0
      Sorted out in details
      From the book British Battleships 1919-1945 for the Kings
      Costs
      Hull £ 2,578,034
      Armor 1,140,000
      Machinery 1,1 16,153
      Armament 2,243,162
      Stores and equipment 315,785

      Total of each ship
      on average: £ 7,393,134.

      We bring the figures to the prices of 1940 http://inflation.iamkate.com/ with a coefficient of 1.09
      We will get 8058 total, 2 444 thousand for weapons
      According to Vangard, the maximum that was found
      final cost of HMS Vanguard was L 11.53 million, with L 3.18 million for armament that did not include the original cost of the activated reserve main battery guns.

      I will note that the figure refers to the actual, and not the estimated cost as I assumed
      King unarmed, 5 614 thousand Vanguard 8.350 thousand The difference is one and a half times
      In fact, it will be less, since part of the funds for Vanguard was allocated after 1940 (long-term construction) 1940 - a milestone in terms of inflation, it jumped sharply. Unfortunately, how money was allocated over the years can hardly be found
      The difference in armament is 1.3 times. Here the achievement of the brites is quite obvious. But I will note the free American Mk-37. To give credit to the creators - well, such a thing
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 24 July 2020 00: 08 New
        +1
        That is, through research, we came to the conclusion that 11,5 is the cost for the 46th year. I also note that I do not understand your position on inflation in 40. The costs of starting the program are hardware, mostly already available or ordered under the Lyons program, and all sorts of expensive things - MSA, air defense, and, by the way, the work of shipbuilders - this is, as it were, much later. So I continue to insist that Vanguard was cheaper than Carolina, and in relation to Iowa in 45 - more than twice as much.
        Quote: Engineer
        But I will note the free American Mk-37. To give credit to the creators - well, such a thing

        Well, you find fault. Blinded from what was.

        In summary. All recent LCs - Yamato Ave. 23, N39, Iowa - have done much more harm than good. Even Montana managed to do harm - it diverted the already extremely scarce intellectual resources of American designers for nonsense. Although in this alternative competition of stones on the neck, pr23 is perhaps out of competition.

        So even with this angle of view, Vanguard is the best wassat ... As for my specific position, I have already written. I am inclined to evaluate the ship by how well the capabilities that the country had were implemented. From this point of view, I have practically no complaints about Vanguard, except for PTZ. Great ship. Alas, I didn't have time.

        But there are such claims to Iowa, and huge ones. In a world with competent Americans, it would be generally AT ALL another ship. I do not respect hack and assault, although what is assault, if not Vanguard.
  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2020 20: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    From what is on the network
    Vanguard Cost: £ 11,530,503 1940 program
    King £ 7,393,134 1936 goals program
    See the depreciation of the pound here
    http://inflation.iamkate.com/
    The site calculator gives 1.09 for 36-40 years.

    It is completely incomprehensible why you include Vanguard in the 1940 program, when the final draft was adopted only in April 1941. By the way, your calculator in the period from 1936 to 1941 gives 1,27
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 23 July 2020 20: 28 New
      0
      Because the money was allocated as part of the 1940 Emergency war program.
      If the money was allocated in 1940, then taking inflation at the beginning or end of the year is pure convention, although it affects the final numbers.
      1. Liam
        Liam 23 July 2020 20: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        Because the money was allocated as part of the 1940 Emergency war program.
        If the money was allocated in 1940, then taking inflation at the beginning or end of the year is pure convention, although it affects the final numbers.

        Here you are mistaken. The money allocated in 1940 does not mean that it was put in a magic chest and spent in 1942 at the "prices" of 1940. They are spent at the price of a year when they are directly involved. built in 40 and because of inflation it costs already 100, then 1942 is considered in the final cost
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 23 July 2020 21: 22 New
          0
          We need at least some convention, close to reality. I already wrote that it is almost impossible to get a schedule of construction costs by years.
          On the other hand, if I opened a bank account for the project. then I have already reserved money on it according to the financial plan. I will spend this expensive money for several years watching the decline in their purchasing power. I pay extra after the fact. The moment of allocation of money (like then a dollar at 30, and now at 70) I need to keep in mind when assessing the real costs.
          This is a good reason to consider inflation exactly by the years of adoption of programs, implying the adoption of the program = allocation and reservation of the bulk of money for them. And if there is a large gap between the two events, and even the arrival in parts, you just have to throw up your hands.
        2. Liam
          Liam 23 July 2020 21: 35 New
          +1
          I understand that you need at least some guidelines in this dispute and therefore think so. But the value in money is probably the most "useless" criterion for comparisons in this rating. 7 million 39 years may well turn out to be much more in real terms than 12 in conditional 1944. or 12 million for the USA - Much cheaper than 5 million for Italy due to the incomparable size of the economies. Absolute figures without reference to all these not always obvious points are quite useless. Not to mention the fact that the pricing of peace and wartime- two different planets
        3. Engineer
          Engineer 23 July 2020 22: 43 New
          0
          I would not like to abandon the cost-effectiveness criterion. I believe that a fairly balanced approach can be found.
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 July 2020 08: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    Because the money was allocated as part of the 1940 Emergency war program.

    Then they would not have been enough to build the ship - by 1941 inflation "ate" them. However, it seems you have already agreed that over 11 million is the actual cost of Vanguard.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 23 July 2020 14: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    Project 23, N39
    Since you are talking about unbuilt ships, then include Montana in your reasoning. Was this a project that took into account the lessons of WWII and was not dominated by any restrictions and agreements, or was it a simple development of pre-war battleships?
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 23 July 2020 14: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      Since you are talking about unbuilt ships, then include Montana in your reasoning.

      Not quite. And the German, and pr23, and Lyon - were not built, but were laid. Montana was not laid down, there was only metal cutting and preparatory work.
      Quote: bk0010
      Was this a project that took into account the lessons of WWII and was not dominated by any restrictions and agreements, or was it a simple development of pre-war battleships?

      This is definitely a development of the pre-war battleships. The Americans were selling their beloved chest at a new technical level and in a new dimension.

      Ridiculous to say, victim of drunken conception Alaska, the worst of the small LCs, fit better in the 44-45 context than Montana.
  • Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 23 July 2020 08: 13 New
    +2
    More like the Competence Rating of the Fleet Command and in particular of the ship commanders. All the same, nobody canceled competent application. And of course you can chop nuts with a microscope.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 23 July 2020 08: 51 New
    +1
    At that rating, the photos look better. And the rating can be based on the beauty / impression of the photos. And then Richelieu is in first place, Yamato is in second, Bismarck is third. It's also quite a rating))
    1. Romka47
      Romka47 23 July 2020 14: 49 New
      0
      And here again, come on, even if you take your rating "for beauty" I would give first place to Iowa, second to Richelieu, third to Bismarck. Even here, the taste and color are all pencils .. I like the Iowa's conning tower and cutwork, but the fact that the deck is like karamysl at Yamoto, on the contrary, repulses.
  • K-50
    K-50 23 July 2020 08: 53 New
    +1
    The last photos of "Yamato" and "Roma" are the same image.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 23 July 2020 09: 05 New
    +2
    The novel did not take into account in the rating that the very presence of "useless" battleships among the Japanese and Germans fettered the huge forces of the British and Pendos.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 July 2020 13: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      The novel did not take into account in the rating that the very presence of "useless" battleships among the Japanese and Germans fettered the huge forces of the British and Pendos.

      And what huge forces pinned down "Tirpitz"? One or two Kings and one Illastries? wink

      About chained American forces - forget it. For American ships, the Atlantic was a training ground in conditions as close as possible to combat ones. No one fettered them - it was just that until the end of this training they could not be released against a normal enemy.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 23 July 2020 14: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        One or two Kings and one Illastries?

        One three is not enough for you?
        In addition, there was also Bismarck.
        Yamato also forced the Pendos to act in constant tension.
        In general, your conclusions seem strange - judging by your logic, the Red Army held dozens of divisions in the Far East during the Second World War without any tension?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 July 2020 18: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          One three is not enough for you?

          Taking into account the number of RN, this does not pull on "huge forces".
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          In addition, there was also Bismarck.

          Which in the same way fettered only the forces of the Home Fleet: 2 LC, including one of the cripples ("Rodney" or "Nelson"), 1 LC and 1 AB. All other forces "hunting for" Bismarck "" were either a combined hodgepodge pulled out of their service areas, or even openly unfinished (with factory crews on board, which also worked at the SUAO).
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Yamato also forced the Pendos to act in constant tension.

          For this, the Yankees had to know that the Yamato is a superlinkor. That's just, EMNIP, the Americans did not have any exact data on the Yamato (thanks to the Japanese total secrecy) - and they considered the Yamato an ordinary post-Washington DC.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 23 July 2020 18: 54 New
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Taking into account the number of RN, this does not pull on "huge forces".

            And how many ships from the "numerical launch" could at least try to sink the "Tirpitz" if they could catch up?

            Quote: Alexey RA
            Which in the same way fettered only the forces of the Home Fleet: 2 LC, including one of the cripples ("Rodney" or "Nelson"), 1 LC and 1 AB.

            At least you just looked at Tovey's report ... What did he get out of Scapa with?

            Quote: Alexey RA
            or even frankly unfinished (with factory crews on board, which, among other things, worked at SUAO).

            Not SUAO, but towers ...
            But it was this "unfinished" who hammered the first three nails into the lid of the Bismarck's coffin.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 July 2020 10: 22 New
              0
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              At least you just looked at Tovey's report ... What did he get out of Scapa with?

              "King" and "Victories". Plus the group "Huda" came out earlier - he himself and the unfinished "Prince".
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              Not SUAO, but towers ...

              And SUAO. EMNIP, Tsushima wrote that the factory team worked in the DAC on the devices - only they could make them work. In general, sending the "Prince" into battle was the wildest adventure.

              By the way, why did Home Fleet only watch Tirpitz? Besides him, there was also "Charles", whom the Home Fleet eventually kicked. So we can say that the Royal Navy with a part of its forces forged all the linear forces of the Kriegsmarine. smile
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 24 July 2020 18: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                "King" and "Victories".

                Only now "Victories" by force decision Tovey was torn from the escort of the military convoy WS8B, like "Repals".

                Quote: Alexey RA
                unfinished "Prince".

                Why unfinished?
                The ship was commissioned on 31.03.41.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And SUAO.

                There is no mention of problems with the ALCO, neither in the Leach report, nor in the McMullen report.
                The only complaint McMullen complains about is that the 15-foot rangefinder has a small base.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                In general, sending the "Prince" into battle was the wildest adventure.

                But imagine, they didn't send "Prince" ... :)

                Quote: Alexey RA
                Besides him, there was also "Charles", whom the Home Fleet eventually kicked.

                "Charles" appeared in the "Zone of Fate" only in 43 ...
  • Sailor
    Sailor 23 July 2020 09: 19 New
    +1
    Of course, it is better to sink a single ship with a squadron, as the Americans did with the British, and if King George tried to play one by one against Bismarck, then they would have looked who is cooler.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 23 July 2020 09: 27 New
    +1
    In fact, in addition to direct participation in battles, there is an indirect contribution. Threats to communications, pinning down many times superior enemy forces, etc.
    Given this, Tirpitz is an absolute champion. The mere decision of the British to disband the cover of PQ-17 when Tirpitz left the base is worth something
    And the old people are forgotten. Worspite and Congo class were giving the heat
    1. Liam
      Liam 24 July 2020 01: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Given this, Tirpitz is an absolute champion. The British decision alone to disband the PQ-17 cover when Tirpitz

      Let me just remind you that there were 40 Arctic convoys during the entire war. And 39 of them did not really notice the "champion".
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 23 July 2020 09: 53 New
    0
    Thanks for the article, Roman.
    It turned out, however, a little like a school - in height, weight, intelligence.
    Well, in the mind - the best Anglo-Saxons.
    It would be more interesting to compare the designs of ships in the base part: main caliber, protection, energy. The rest, as the experience of modernization shows, is a profitable business. I think that with equal control systems and tuned air defenses, the Iowa will still be the best (however, I love the most combat ship of the series, New Jersey).
    It is interesting that V.V. Ashik and the company from the captured "Vittorio Veneto" and "Littorio", if Stalin had bargained for them in 1943 as a guarantee of entering the war with Japan. I think that the version of "South Dakota" in Russian could have turned out.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 23 July 2020 09: 54 New
    +4
    Another example of what happens if something is done without understanding the essence of the process. It turns out seven bags of buckwheat wool.
    Before compiling any ratings, you need to understand what it is.
    Rating is an assessment of something in terms of qualitative or quantitative characteristics, or a combination of both.
    That is, in order to make a rating of "something", these very "something" must be compared.
    And before you compare something, you need to know what a comparison is.
    Comparison is the process of evaluating two or more items by identifying the relevant, comparable characteristics of each item, and then determining which of the items in question is most consistent with those comparable, relevant characteristics. This process is also called integral comparison.
    The main idea is that in order to make a rating, the characteristics must be comparable.
    Therefore, Dmitry Tatarinov is really all logical - he compares battleships by comparable characteristics - technical.
    And the author of the article has no logic, because before comparing according to such characteristics as "utility", it is necessary to decide what this utility is. And this is the problem in the article.
    Utility is the assessment of an item in terms of its ability to satisfy specific needs. and it is quite difficult to assess this "usefulness".
    Indeed, what is "more useful" is the only hit of the battleship "Richelieu" in the British "Barham", or a short exit from the base "Tirpitz" on July 5, 1942, in which he did not see the enemy, but thanks to his presence, the PQ convoy was practically destroyed. 17?
    Or what is more useful, the raids of Italian battleships, or the Tirpitz stationed at the base, which poses a constant threat to the Allied convoys in the North Atlantic?
    When the author decides on the criterion "usefulness of the battleship," then you can sit down to the article. Until then, another zilch.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 23 July 2020 10: 46 New
    +2
    If so, where is Worspite on the list? Or is it higher than the rating?
    I would put Amerov in the first place. Their radar equipment, 127mm mk12, projectiles with radar fuses was out of competition, plus there were a lot of them.
  • Oleg Zatsepin
    Oleg Zatsepin 23 July 2020 11: 45 New
    0
    With pictures at the end of the incident, sorry. One picture popped out for two. Roma - Yamato ...
  • prodi
    prodi 23 July 2020 13: 21 New
    +2
    it's funny, of course, now to observe, but it seems that the weakest point of the battleships was precisely the main caliber: too low accuracy at typical battle distances, at a high cost, high weight and low resource
  • sleeve
    sleeve 23 July 2020 13: 55 New
    +5
    Normal rating. I like. There you can safely include our "ganguts". Few would argue with them on the effectiveness of fire. "Marat" fought like that from the grave. I don't have the number of landed planes at hand. I am afraid that the aforementioned ships will not be able to boast of such a cardinal operational weight in the front-line segment of combat operations at all. And "Soviet Union" in general heaped up with one barrel like that "Alabama".
  • NF68
    NF68 23 July 2020 16: 30 New
    +1
    Their German counterpart "Tirpitz" also never fired in combat, and therefore deserves to stand on the lowest step. Because he hid all the war in the Norwegian fiords instead of fighting. But the command of the Kriegsmarine decided so, we are not discussing, we are stating the fact of worthlessness.


    In 1941, Germany was left with one normal battleship, which posed a real danger to British convoys, even if they had enemy battleships in their cover. Because of this, the British had to constantly keep on hand a couple of their battleships, and to them, and a retinue of ships for less. In the sea "Tirpitz" rarely went out also because the Germans had a shortage of naval fuel oil and oil. This fuel oil was very expensive for Germany and this fuel oil was used with greater benefit by German EM and destroyers.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 23 July 2020 19: 51 New
    +2
    Ladies and gentlemen! From reading the comments, the idea arose to compare battleships in terms of damage done to enemies. In this sense, the British and "Tirpitz"
  • Alien From
    Alien From 23 July 2020 20: 51 New
    0
    Roman thanks, interesting to read!
  • Hog
    Hog 23 July 2020 23: 17 New
    +1
    6th place. "Yamato", "Musashi", "Tirpitz"

    Musashi hurts like Missouri.
    Combat ships. Ratings and ... ratings

    The rating is stupid from the word at all.
    Why?
    Yes, by the fact that it compares the command's ability to use the ships available to him, and not the ships themselves. So it was necessary to write in the title "The effectiveness of the use of battleships by admirals of different countries."
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 24 July 2020 00: 21 New
    0
    all true monstrous battleships became obsolete back in 1903 ... Russian battleships also defended in the base both world wars ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 July 2020 14: 19 New
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Russian battleships also defended in the base both world wars ...

      Seriously? Or do you mean by "Russian battleships" only four / a pair of "Sevastopol"? wink
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 25 July 2020 00: 30 New
        0
        well, yes, I mean them, Slava was an armadillo at first, and was not too big
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexander Moiseev
    Alexander Moiseev 24 July 2020 18: 03 New
    0
    Fresh point of view. It was pleasant to read.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 24 July 2020 21: 12 New
    0
    The torpedo boats of the USSR and German submarines made an order of magnitude more than any battleship.
  • kig
    kig 25 July 2020 03: 16 New
    0
    They are simply two approaches to rating, or two ratings based on different principles. By the way, you can make another rating according to the effectiveness of the tasks assigned to the ship. In this sense, for example, I do not understand the fuss around Bismarck. Yes, he fought, drowned him, but that's not why he was sent to the Atlantic.
  • Victor Pavlovich
    Victor Pavlovich 25 July 2020 17: 52 New
    0
    The author was originally: Top most powerful battleships of World War II. These are the numbers. And the fact that the teams there were badly trained, and the command of the fleets was cow-like - this has nothing to do with technical power.
    So your article is interesting, but you were shooting at the wrong target))
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 27 July 2020 07: 59 New
    0
    Did Rodney sink the Bismarck? Those. not sunk, but disabled its artillery, which allowed the cruisers to finish off the Bismarck with torpedoes. "King George 5" did not play any role, tk. his artillery was out of order, like that of the Prince of Wales.
  • SiberianGun
    SiberianGun 11 August 2020 12: 08 New
    0
    That's it, that you have a rating of how useful the ships were. And this rating does not reflect either combat effectiveness, or protection, or striking power at all. It all depends on the command and whoever is lucky.
  • serg2108
    serg2108 24 August 2020 13: 22 New
    0
    Once again, the author presented everything upside down, but beautifully and got a different rating-efficiency of using the navies of countries, not ships!
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 August 2020 17: 55 New
    0
    So let's take a look at this rating in terms of utility. Usefulness, not millimeters of calibers and centimeters of armor, is what should be fundamental to identifying any rating. Usefulness, that is, successfully completed combat missions, damage inflicted, sunk enemy ships.

    From the point of view of usefulness, the first place in the war is unconditional for the three old men of the Soviet battleship.
    The minimum, or rather, insignificant expense and significant utility on the main front, against the main enemy in the decisive years.
  • Iskazi
    Iskazi 9 September 2020 01: 50 New
    0
    Ratings ..., real ships and people are at war, and ratings for speculation and kitchen chatter