Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. Arrivederci, Bella!

39

And on this note (it’s hard to say whether it is joyful or mournful), we begin our review of the last pair of Italian light cruisers of the Condottieri type, type E. Yes, after them there were also ships of the F type, but, as they say, they did not smell gunpowder.


But type E ... It's debatable, but let me put it this way: they were very, very good ships. They are in no way inferior to classmates from other countries, moreover, even superior in some way. And how long these ships have served is the best confirmation of this.

But let's order.

Glory. I don't know exactly who, but in Latin, gloria is for those who in the Italian naval command thought of it and convinced the others to abandon the rather delusional idea of ​​a cruiser scout who is able to chase destroyers and be a thunderstorm for them and for the leaders of the destroyers.

Probably the smartest thought after the thought of surrender was precisely about building normal light cruisers, rather than pulling an octopus on a globe in an attempt to do at least something from the Condottieri project as a whole.

An octopus, sorry, not an owl, easily fits on a globe. But this does not make it easier for anyone. And when it dawned on the Italian naval commanders that a light cruiser could be built and needed, then they finally got some very interesting ships.

Giuseppe Garibaldi and Luigi di Savoia by Duca degli Abruzzi.


The idea of ​​a cruiser-scout without armor, but capable of chasing destroyers, drowned, and on its basis the light cruisers "Condottieri" type E were obtained. Very balanced and versatile ships without overshoot.

Naturally, the displacement had to be increased. Again. And not just to increase it, but by another 1 tons if we compare it with the Duca di Aosta. The dimensions of the ship were slightly increased behind the displacement. The cruiser has become wider by 000 meters. This entailed many design changes. Moreover, the changes went only to the benefit of the ship.

The increased body width made it possible to rearrange the boilers by placing them in pairs. This led to a reduction in the length of the energy compartment. Further, reducing the length of the compartment made it possible to move the artillery towers closer to the center of the ship. Unloading the ends (bow and stern of the ship) made it possible to shorten the length of the armor belt on one side and increase its thickness on the other. The armor belt has been increased by 30 mm.

But the main thing that these measures allowed was to increase the number of main battery guns to ten.

It looks like an American heavy cruiser of the Pensacola class, which also had artillery, two three-gun turrets, two two-gun towers.


The speed dropped as expected, to 31 knots. However, it was already a different ship, for slightly different tasks.

The result is a ship with a very interesting profile. The silhouette was very similar to the new battleships of the "Giulio Cesare" class, of course, on a reduced scale.


As a result, the displacement of "Garibaldi" reached 11 tons, "Abruzzi" - 295 tons.

The cruisers' mechanisms consisted of 8 Yarrow boilers, 2 Parsons turbines with a total design power of 100 hp. They provided the requested speed of 000 knots. The fuel reserve was equal to 31 tons, it guaranteed a cruising range of 1 miles with a cruising speed of 680 knots.

During trials, the Abruzzi developed a power of 103 hp. and showed a speed of 990 knots. But I have already mentioned more than once that the Italians used to cheat when measuring, and the Abruzzi was lightened to 34,8 tons. "Garibaldi" with a displacement of 8 500 tons and a power of mechanisms 10 120 hp. - 101 knots.

But the usual speed was 31 knots.

Reservation


The booking was luxurious compared to the first Condottieri. In general, according to the plan, it was supposed to withstand the impact of 203-mm shells, but this will allow me to question it. But shells of smaller calibers are quite.

An outer belt 30 mm thick joined at an angle of 12 degrees with an inner belt 100 mm thick. The deck was 40 mm thick, the conning tower had a wall thickness of 140 mm, and the roof was 75 mm. The turrets of the main caliber were armored in the frontal part with 145 mm armor, the roof was 60 mm, and the side walls were 35 mm. The turret barbets had 100 mm armor. The shields of the universal caliber guns were 8 mm thick. The total weight of the ship's armor is 2 tons.

weaponry


New 152-mm guns were installed on E-type cruisers. The same as the anti-mine guns of battleships of the "Littorio" type. The Ansaldo guns of the 1934 model had a length of 55 calibers and the best data. The gun could send a shell weighing 50 kg to a distance of more than 25 km. Considering that the designers moved away from the practice of two guns in one cradle for the "Condottieri" type E project, the accuracy of the fire increased significantly.

Combat ships. Cruisers. Arrivederci, Bella!

The universal caliber was represented by the same 100 mm guns in the Minisini system installations. 4 twin rigs, 8 barrels. But the towers were installed more rationally, so that a wider sector could be covered with fire. The fire control system also remained the same.

Small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery consisted of eight 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and eight 13,2-mm machine guns. Both cannons and machine guns were installed in sparks.

The torpedo armament consisted of 2 three-pipe 533-mm torpedo tubes, placed on board, with an ammunition load of 12 torpedoes, anti-submarine armament consisted of two bombers. The cruisers could take on board 120 min.

Interestingly, the issue was resolved with aviation group. When the main and auxiliary calibers were rescheduled, it became clear that, as on early-type cruisers, it would not be possible to install a catapult that could act on both sides. And a hangar in this design would interfere with the shooting of one of the aft towers.

And a very original decision was made: to install two catapults on both sides of chimney # 2. The hangar had to be abandoned. Theoretically, the cruiser could take four aircraft (all the same RO.43), but in order not to make a mess on the deck with spare aircraft, not to mount them, and so on, they were limited to the pair that was immediately installed on catapults.


In general, this RO.43 was a very so-so airplane, with a short range and lightly armed. And the scouts were really enough and one.

The cruiser's crew consisted of 692 people.


About modifications. There were a lot of modifications, but most of them took place after the war. In general, both cruisers have a good life in terms of longevity.

As for the period of World War II, everything was simple: there is nothing to improve what has already worked out well. So the Italians focused on improving the cruisers of the first types, and bypassed the E type.

In 1943, the useless 13,2 mm machine guns were removed, and instead of them, five twin mounts of 20 mm anti-aircraft machine guns were installed.

"Abruzzi" from the German allies got the radar. The Italians were very bad with their own people.

All other upgrades took place after Italy left the war, so we'll talk about them at the end.

Service



Here, too, it turned out ... in Italian. The lead, that is, the first to be laid, was Giuseppe Garibaldi. But the CRDA shipyard in Trieste was not very fast, so the Abruzzi, which was built at the OTO shipyard in La Spezia, was built earlier. So any ship can be called the lead ship, but it is mostly named after "Garibaldi", although the "Abruzzi" has no less rights.

So, "Luigi di Savoia Duca della Abruzzi".


Laid down on December 28, 1934, launched on April 21, 1936, became a part of fleet December 1 1937 year.

Upon commissioning, the ship underwent a crew training course and became part of the 8th cruiser division. He managed to take part in the Spanish Civil War, supported the troops of General Franco, but without particularly significant events.

Perhaps the main operation in which the "Abruzzi" took part was the occupation of Albania in 1939. In general, the Italians went to seize Albania with a force not only formidable, but capable of frightening anyone. 2 battleships, 4 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 4 destroyers, 7 auxiliary ships. And fifty more transports with an expeditionary corps.

In general, for a country like Albania, it is over the roof.

"Abruzzi" and 4 destroyers heroically covered the landing, capturing the city of Santi Quaranti. Several volleys in the city, bombing of the Italian Air Force - and the city was captured.

Then the Second World War began. The Abruzzi and her comrades searched for French and British ships in June 1940, but did not find them. He took part in the battle at Punto Stilo, but, like all Italian cruisers, he simply indicated participation.

From December 1940 to March 1941, the cruiser operated in the Adriatic Sea, patrolling the water area and escorting convoys. On 4 March, the Abruzzi, together with the Garibaldi, fired at the Greek positions at Pokerasa. We can say that the cruiser took part in Italy's claims to Greek territory. Further, there were attempts to disrupt the supply of British troops in Greece, but even in the battle at Gavdos, the participation of the cruiser was inexpressive. Shot at British ships.


Then the Abruzzi was ordered to go to the base, which, one might say, became providence, because in the final phase of the battle at Matapan, the Italians lost 3 heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers, and the battleship Vittorio Veneto was seriously damaged.

Covering supply convoys to North Africa took a very long time, until mid-1941. I must say that by making Malta their stronghold, the British actually disrupted the supply of the German-Italian troops in North Africa. And at the end of 1941 the situation became not very pleasant. The headquarters of the Italian fleet decided to conduct several convoys, supplying them with a strong cover formation. "Abruzzi" was included in the covering forces ... Hit the full program.


On November 21, the ships went to sea, and on the 22nd, everything did not start like that. First, a British submarine successfully hit the heavy cruiser Trieste with torpedoes, and then British aircraft flew in from Malta. The first to catch the torpedo from the pilots was the Abruzzi. It happened just after midnight.

It is clear that the convoy went its own way, leaving the cruiser and two destroyers to solve problems on the spot. Naturally, the British decided to finish off the damaged cruiser. I must say that the torpedo hit very well, in the stern, jammed the rudders. Just like Bismarck.

But, unlike the crew of the German battleship, the Italians did not give up. For 4 hours, some repulsed attacks by British aviation, while the latter pumped out water, wedged the shafts and repaired the rudders.

Perseverance is rewarded. At first, the crew was able to move at 4 knots. This is about nothing on the one hand, but on the other - as soon as it began to dawn, the planes would definitely finish off the ship standing still.

The steering wheels hadn't been repaired yet, so the Abruzzi could only go in slow and wide circles. But even this was enough for the first time to fight off the planes. In general, the picture was supposed to be very surreal, as British pilots in the light of illuminating bombs and missiles tried to finish off the damaged ship, but he did not give up.

In general, all were strong and courageous warriors, both Italian sailors and British pilots. The Italians were just a second longer stronger. And a miracle happened: the rudders were repaired, and the cruiser slowly but surely crawled into Messina. And it got there!

The cruiser returned to service only in the summer of 1942, when the Italian fleet was virtually paralyzed by a fuel crisis. And until the capitulation of Italy, "Abruzzi" did not go out to sea.

And then Italy ended the war and the allies decided to plow the cruiser on patrols in the Atlantic to fight the German raiders and blockade breakers. In the Atlantic, the Abruzzi went on patrol five times and was engaged in this business until April 1944, after which it returned to Italy and was used as a transport until the end of the war.


After the end of the war, "Abruzzi" was left in the Italian fleet. Lucky again, they could have given it to someone for reparations.

In 1950-1953, "Abruzzi" underwent a series of upgrades. The number of 100-mm twin mounts was reduced to two, all Italian anti-aircraft guns were replaced with licensed 40-mm Bofors submachine guns. Four quad units and four twin units.


Then the second chimney and two of the eight boilers were removed. The speed dropped, but only slightly, to 29 knots. But the freed space allowed to equip the ship with a complex of American radars.

As an artillery cruiser "Abruzzi" she served until 1961, when she was nevertheless withdrawn from the fleet and dismantled for metal in 1965.

Giuseppe Garibaldi.


Laid down on December 1, 1933 at the CRDA shipyard in Trieste, launched on April 21, 1936, entered the fleet on December 20, 1937.

After passing tests and a course of combat training, he took part in operations to support the rebels of General Franco and in April 1940 in the invasion of Albania.

"Garibaldi" fell into the group, whose target was the largest Albanian port of Durazzo. This formation also included the battleship Giulio Cesare, 4 heavy cruisers of the Pola class, the light cruiser Luigi Cadorna and 10 destroyers. And they had to work to the full.

When the landing began, the Albanian coastal batteries swept away the first wave of the landing. Of course, the main caliber of the battleship and cruisers went into action, and the batteries died away. A second wave of troops landed and the city fell into the hands of the Italians.

Further, the combat path of "Garibaldi" proceeded along with the sistership "Abruzzi". Patrols, convoy operations ...


During one of such operations, in the summer of 1941, when the mission had already been completed and the cruiser was returning to base, a situation occurred that once again confirms that one cannot relax in war.

Not far from the island of Meretimo, the Garibaldi was torpedoed by the British submarine Upholder. This happened on July 28, 1941. The torpedo hit the bow of the first turret of the main battery. The cruiser received more than 700 tons of water, but the crew coped with it and the ship reached the base.

Already in November 1941, "Garibaldi" was in a similar situation with the cruiser "Abruzzi", which was torpedoed by British aircraft. "Garibaldi" came to the damaged brother and helped repel the attacks of enemy aircraft. And then he accompanied me to Messina.

Until mid-1943, "Garibaldi" was engaged in escorting convoys to North Africa and other routine services.


After Italy's surrender, the cruiser sailed to Malta. The allied command wanted to use the cruiser for patrolling in the Atlantic, but the protracted repairs did not allow these plans to come true.

Until May 1945, "Garibaldi" was used as a transport, and after the war it was left in the Italian fleet. In the first post-war years, anti-aircraft weapons were strengthened on it and new radars were installed.


But the most interesting thing began in 1957, when it was decided to rebuild "Garibaldi" into a missile cruiser. And rebuilt.

The main striking force was four American ballistic missiles "Polaris A1" of the first series, without nuclear warheads, but with the possibility of installing them if necessary.


In addition to the Polaris, the cruiser's armament consisted of a twin installation of the Terrier air defense missile system with a sidearm of 72 missiles. Artillery armament consisted of four 135-mm universal guns and eight 76-mm anti-aircraft guns. An anti-submarine helicopter was placed at the stern.


In this form, "Garibaldi" served for 10 years, after which on February 20, 1971 it was withdrawn to the reserve. The last Italian light cruiser from World War II was dismantled in 1979.


What can be said as a result? A good ship lasts a long time. As soon as the Italians abandoned the obvious overkill in terms of creating cruisers-scouts, they got a really good light cruiser, in no way inferior to analogues from other countries.

The path taken by the cruiser "Condottieri" only confirms that in Italy they knew how to build ships. This family of ships cannot fully serve as an example, but ... "Garibaldi" and "Abruzzi" were indeed very good ships.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Warships. On the road to excellence
Warships. Cruisers. The sea god really loves the trinity!
Combat ships. Cruisers. We would immediately build a dry cargo ship...
Warships. Cruisers. Neither steal nor guard
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus
    Lexus 29 July 2020 05: 49 New
    10
    The main battery guns, as far as I understand, were finally placed on carriages with separate guidance and, obviously, armored partitions between them. Like everyone else is normal. And then one hit - and the tower was completely silent. True, then they "corrected", tk. in the age of missiles, this solution has become useless. The story with the Polaris was something in general. We tried to get "both the Swiss, and the reaper, and the player's pipe." (FROM) bully
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 July 2020 09: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: lexus
      The main battery guns, as far as I understand, were finally placed on carriages with separate guidance and, obviously, armored partitions between them. Like everyone else is normal.

      Eck you put the Americans. smile
      They were building the New Orleans at this time, with the built-in main guns. Only the last pre-war KRT - "Wichita" received separate guidance of the barrels.
      And in the KRL class, only the post-war Worcester could boast of separate vertical guidance of the barrels. On the "Brooklyn" and "Clevelands" that preceded them, the Americans were completely perverted: the cradles were separate, but the VN drive was common.
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 29 July 2020 06: 31 New
    10
    Not a sailor, but I continue to read this cycle. Interesting. Thanks to the author.
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 29 July 2020 07: 31 New
    +5
    The main striking force was four American ballistic missiles "Polaris A1" of the first series, without nuclear warheads, but with the possibility of installing them if necessary.
    Italy's missiles themselves have never been provided, either with or without warheads. Development of the Italian ballistic missile Alpha began in 1971.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 29 July 2020 08: 49 New
      +9
      Well, it didn’t stop us from setting a groundwork and even conducting tests. If it were required (war on the nose), this cruiser would well become a component of the NSNF.

      1. Constanty
        Constanty 29 July 2020 09: 37 New
        +6
        In the La Spezia region, at the end of 1961 and at the beginning of 1962, the first attempts were made to launch the Polaris models. The first real missiles were fired at a US Navy range in the Caribbean in November 1962. Ballistic missiles were not accepted aboard the Garibaldi during routine service.

        I am interested in the strong tilt of the ship during rocket launch.

        In general, they are beautiful (of course, not in the missile cruiser version) and successful ships. Some of the best light cruisers ever built before World War II - if not the best.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 29 July 2020 09: 49 New
          +4
          If the lungs - then Brooklyn without all the alternatives. By the way, the latter was decommissioned in 1985, and the last battles of these cruisers were in 1982.



          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 July 2020 10: 01 New
            +6
            Brooklyn is ... to put it mildly, far from the most successful KRL
            1. Baron pardus
              Baron pardus 17 September 2020 20: 56 New
              0
              And forgive the question in general, never a sailor, and what did you not like "Brooklyn"? 15 6 inches is a serious argument, 127mm armor belt, 51mm armor deck, 165mm turret forehead armor and 152mm barbets, like a 127mm wheelhouse. In the 30s, among the Japanese, no one could approach Brooklyn at all. Yes, station wagons 8 and not 12 as on Cleveland, but 28mm failed. But by 1943 Brooklyn had got 20+ 20mm and 28+ 40mm. 32 knots speed. Yes, no one except the Japanese had a light cruiser capable of withstanding the Brooklyn in the mid-30s. Don't forget about the Mk32 radar either. If I don't know what, please tell us. I admire Brooklyn from the moment I read about them as a child, in the "model constructor". Now in the USA, here, too, about Brooklyn, otherwise they do not write with delight. They say revolutionary cruisers, founders of the new school of shipbuilding.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2020 08: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                15 6 inches is a serious argument,

                At a short distance in night combat, yes. But during the day and at long distances, due to the low initial velocity of the projectile and, accordingly, the large dispersion, it would be possible to hit the target only by accident.
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                127mm armor belt, 51mm armor deck, 165mm turret forehead armor and 152mm barbets, like a 127mm wheelhouse. In the 30s of the Japanese, no one could approach Brooklyn at all.

                Asked - we answer :)))) In order to assess the security of the ship, it is not enough to know the thickness of the armor - you still need to look at the schemes of this protection. Looking at which we will see that the 127 mm brnepoyas extended only a third of the length of the hull and protected only the engine and boiler rooms, and the bow and stern had practically no protection (in the stern, for example, only the cellars were protected). That is, if we compare Brooklyn, for example, with Chapaev in terms of armor, then Brooklyn is kind of steeper, because 127 mm side and 50 mm deck versus 100 mm side and 50 mm deck. But Brooklyn had such protection for 56 meters, and Chapay - for 133 meters.
                A little more details - here https://topwar.ru/100890-kreysera-tipa-chapaev-chast-2-dovoennyy-proekt.html
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                and 152mm barbets

                Only a part. A shell hitting an unprotected side under a barbet threatened to destroy the ship, because the Americans managed to store part of the ammunition in the barbets ... And from below they were not protected by anything.
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                Yes, no one except the Japanese had a light cruiser capable of withstanding the Brooklyn in the mid-30s.

                Let me remind you that Brooklyn entered service in 1938 :))))) And the same "Belfast" was much more perfect
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                Don't forget about the Mk32 radar either.

                radars - yes, here the Americans were all ahead of the planet. But the presence of a radar is still difficult to attribute to the design of the ship.
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                Yes, station wagons 8 and not 12 as in Cleveland, but 28mm failed.

                The question is that the 127-mm / 38 station wagons that became famous received only the last 2 Brooklyn, the rest had to be content with 127-mm / 25 guns, and this, to put it mildly, was not at all the best option for WWII.
                Quote: Baron Pardus
                32 knots speed.

                Before all upgrades (including air defense). Then - below
                1. Baron pardus
                  Baron pardus 19 September 2020 19: 44 New
                  +1
                  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 September 2020 19: 54 New
                    +1
                    You're welcome! hi
            2. Baron pardus
              Baron pardus 17 September 2020 20: 56 New
              0
              And forgive the question in general, never a sailor, and what did you not like "Brooklyn"? 15 6 inches is a serious argument, 127mm armor belt, 51mm armor deck, 165mm turret forehead armor and 152mm barbets, like a 127mm wheelhouse. In the 30s, among the Japanese, no one could approach Brooklyn at all. Yes, station wagons 8 and not 12 as on Cleveland, but 28mm failed. But by 1943 Brooklyn had got 20+ 20mm and 28+ 40mm. 32 knots speed. Yes, no one except the Japanese had a light cruiser capable of withstanding the Brooklyn in the mid-30s. Don't forget about the Mk32 radar either. If I don't know what, please tell us. I admire Brooklyn from the moment I read about them as a child, in the "model constructor". Now in the USA, here, too, about Brooklyn, otherwise they do not write with delight. They say revolutionary cruisers, founders of the new school of shipbuilding.
          2. Constanty
            Constanty 29 July 2020 10: 03 New
            +1
            You're right. I actually forgot about them. Really unique when it comes to weapons and armor, and especially range with the same or even less offset. Perhaps only minor stability problems. Although they are certainly not prettier :-)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 July 2020 12: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Constanty
              Truly unique when it comes to weapons and armor

              Despite the fact that the first is very specific, and the second is frankly weak.
          3. Engineer
            Engineer 29 July 2020 11: 07 New
            +2
            Well, it is "light" only formally, according to the criterion of the Civil Code
          4. Octopus
            Octopus 29 July 2020 12: 43 New
            +2
            Quote: donavi49
            If the lungs, then Brooklyn without all the alternatives

            )))
            I will not name a single successful American ship of the 1/2 of the 20th century before Geering. Fletcher, if you don't look at his price. The rest are bad or very bad.

            Brooklyn is somewhere in between these two categories.
        2. Liam
          Liam 29 July 2020 11: 21 New
          +3
          Quote: Constanty
          In the La Spezia region, at the end of 1961 and at the beginning of 1962, the first attempts were made to launch the Polaris models. The first real missiles were fired at the US Navy range in the Caribbean in November 1962. Ballistic missiles were not accepted on board the Garibaldi during routine service.

          Where does infa come from?
          The first launch of a mock Polaris rocket on August 31, 1963, in the Gulf of La Spezia, was never loaded or launched.
          On November 11, 1962 in San Juan di Porto Rico Terriers and not Polarisas launched.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Constanty
            Constanty 29 July 2020 16: 14 New
            0


            Naval Strategy and Power in the Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future, John B. Hattendorf, p. 222, footnote 27.
            1. Liam
              Liam 29 July 2020 19: 06 New
              +2
              Let's just say, the Italians don't know anything about this. The United States did not agree to transfer a single copy of Polaris. For various reasons, including the disagreement between Annlia and France, and also because of the decision to base the BR only on submarines. surface ships (on Long Beach) and even considered the possibility of placing on civilian ships. During that period (up to 62 years), they were interested in Italian developments on the topic. Their technicians were present at the launch of the mock-ups. But it never came to a real rocket
  4. Maks1995
    Maks1995 29 July 2020 09: 10 New
    +2
    Yes, good article. Thank.
  5. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 29 July 2020 09: 40 New
    +2
    Thanks a lot, Roman!
    Everything is meaningful as always, but I will note that the "Pensacola" three-gun turrets are located above the two-gun turrets.
    "Garibaldi" and "Abruzzi" are another iteration towards a real cruiser. As always, another half thousand tons, a full set of three-gun turrets and two 100-mm twin towers were not enough. But what happened was what happened, and the ships served their homeland well.
    1. Potter
      Potter 29 July 2020 10: 11 New
      +1
      With an almost identical power plant and a similar theoretical design, 500 tons would not be enough. KRL pr. 68K, type Chapaev, with 4x3 152mm and 4x2 100mm had 14000 tons of full displacement. True, the MZA was much more powerful, and the 100mm units were stabilized. And the addition of 2 more universal units (well, and a lot more) increased the displacement to 16300t in the 68bis project. With a welded body.
      Thanks for posting, interesting presentation.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 29 July 2020 10: 55 New
        +4
        Thanks for the comment, but 68K is an overgrown post-war build. The power plant is of the previous type (a clone of Emanuele Filiberto Duc d'Aosta), and Giuseppe Garribaldi has new thin-tube compact boilers and turbines. And 500 tons of standard displacement is + 200 tons for three-gun turrets, + 55 tons for additional ammunition for them, + 40 tons for two "minisines" with reinforcements and 45 tons for additional ammunition for them. The rest is additional crew, supplies and compensation for the upper weight.
        1. Potter
          Potter 29 July 2020 20: 09 New
          0
          Do you want to spend money on the case, booking, increasing the power of mechanisms? To accommodate 500 tons of payload, weapons and crew will have to add more than a thousand tons. Or take something off. Or go under the water with an armored belt, with a change in stability. On Chapaev, they removed the TA, aircraft weapons. And this is just to increase the number of B-11 assault rifles.
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 30 July 2020 10: 38 New
            +1
            The hull is the same or from the unbuilt Condottieri F. The draft will simply grow and the ship will lose 0,3 knots of speed. Those. the standard displacement should be about 9 800 - 10 000 T. And the "Luigi di Savoia Duc della Abruzzi" in life reached 9 900 T and nothing terrible happened.
  6. Engineer
    Engineer 29 July 2020 11: 04 New
    +4
    Octopus, sorry, not an owl, easily fits on the globe

    Is the novel so rebuffing critics ??
    At least individual bully
  7. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 29 July 2020 11: 21 New
    +1
    "... on new battleships like" Giulio Cesare "...." - what are they new in the late 30s then? Modernized, more built, they were still in WWI.
  8. NF68
    NF68 29 July 2020 17: 09 New
    +2
    Wouldn't it be easier to install 2 3 gun turrets instead of 2 2 gun and 3 3 gun turrets, and use the displacement and space "saved" in this way to strengthen the air defense?
    1. Potter
      Potter 29 July 2020 21: 39 New
      0
      At the time of the design and construction of these cruisers, the air defense was quite adequate. Contemporaries - the British of the type Town 1-series, also in 1937, had barrels: 8-102mm, 8-40mm, 8-12,7mm.
      1. NF68
        NF68 30 July 2020 16: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Potter
        At the time of the design and construction of these cruisers, the air defense was quite adequate. Contemporaries - the British of the type Town 1-series, also in 1937, had barrels: 8-102mm, 8-40mm, 8-12,7mm.


        The Italians did not have their own aircraft carriers. In this regard, a more powerful air defense would not be superfluous. The production and "operation" of only 3-barrel turrets is cheaper and easier. This is also not unimportant.
  9. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 July 2020 19: 22 New
    +5
    An outer belt 30 mm thick joined at an angle of 12 degrees with an inner belt 100 mm thick.

    For some reason, the author kept silent about the specific design of the onboard booking.
    1. NF68
      NF68 30 July 2020 17: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      An outer belt 30 mm thick joined at an angle of 12 degrees with an inner belt 100 mm thick.

      For some reason, the author kept silent about the specific design of the onboard booking.


      Not only the French were perverted as they could.
  10. unknown
    unknown 29 July 2020 21: 39 New
    +2
    A completely shallow article.
    The author does not understand at all the reasons for the appearance of this project.
    Not for nothing, in a commentary to the previous article in the cycle about Italian light cruisers, I used the expression that "Garibaldi" is generally a difficult case.
    Need to explain?
    The line of Italian light cruisers, which began as a successive, from series to series, improvement of the cruiser - scout, ended with its crown - the type "Monteccucoli".
    The next series, "Condottieri" type D, was redundant.
    The Monteccucoli class had a standard displacement, CTU mass and armor mass very close to those of an ideal La Galissoniere-class light cruiser.
    But, at the same time, it was inferior in both horizontal and vertical booking.
    That is, even in this standard displacement, there was room for improvement.
    Type D has already surpassed the French in terms of armor mass, but in defense, it still has not surpassed.
    But, the standard displacement increased by 900 tons.
    Therefore, in a commentary to the previous article, I noted that this type was not needed.
    Instead, it was necessary to continue building the cruisers of the "Monteccucoli" class.
    The experience of the war proved that their characteristics were quite enough for this theater.
    At this, the line of development of cruisers-scouts was interrupted.
    The Garibaldi project is completely unique.
    Nothing of the kind has been designed in other countries.
    Need to explain?
    1. Artillery.
    The leadership of the fleet not only demanded to increase the number of guns to ten, but, most importantly, to give them a firing range comparable to the firing range of the guns of heavy cruisers.
    Of course, the WWII experience showed that it was very difficult for a heavy cruiser to cope with a light cruiser of the latest generation, since the fire performance of twelve-gun cruisers was higher.
    But, only at those distances at which a light cruiser could reach a heavy one.
    And why, in general, does a light cruiser need a firing range like a heavy one?
    Are there any examples?
    Is.
    Battle in the Java Sea.
    The Japanese have two heavy cruisers and two light cruisers.
    Allies have two heavy and three light.
    The Japanese opened fire from 27 km.
    Only Exeter and Houston were able to answer them.
    The firing range of "Perth" is 23 km.
    The firing range of "De Reiter" and "Java" is 21 km.
    Of course, in the same conditions, and "Garibaldi" would not have got it.
    But, 25,74 km. all the same more, and it will take less time to shorten the distance.
    And the placement of guns in separate cradles not only improved the accuracy of shooting, but also made it possible to switch to firing with full volleys.
    Only German light cruisers, the unfinished Dutch of the De Zeven Provincien type, and the Swedes completed after the war, of the Tre Krunur type, had such a firing range.
    Only cruisers of the "Chapaev" type had a firing range fully comparable to that of heavy cruisers.
    2. Reservation.
    It was originally designed to defend against the guns of heavy cruisers.
    In terms of armor weight, "Garibaldi" left behind not only all light cruisers, but also ALL HEAVY cruisers (including Algeria), with the exception of the Des Moines-class cruisers, to which it lost only 58 tons, and absolute record-holders - cruisers type "Zara".
    As usual, the Italians were smart with the booking scheme.
    The example of "Algeria" shows that here, in the same mass of armor, they could achieve better results.
    The Garibaldi project is completely unique.
    He gave rise to a completely new line of development of light cruisers.
    Light cruisers originally designed to counter heavy cruisers.
    Considering that both Italy and France, the main enemy in the Mediterranean, had the same number of heavy cruisers, and could not increase their number in the foreseeable future, the Italians with their light "anti-heavy" cruisers gained an advantage.
    The fact that the Italians were unable to use their advantage tactically is a management problem.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 July 2020 18: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: ignoto
      A completely shallow article.

      It's just bad with the primary sources ... :)
    2. Cayz kfgby
      Cayz kfgby 1 August 2020 21: 11 New
      0
      Light "anti-heavy" cruisers - so it was in TTZ of this type of cruisers? What do the Italians themselves write? You and I can think and come up with anything ...
      1. unknown
        unknown 2 August 2020 06: 31 New
        0
        No need to think it over.
        The leadership of the Royal Italian Navy demanded, when developing the cruisers of the 1932-1933 program, to PROVIDE them with PROTECTION from 203 mm shells, increase the number of guns to ten, and GIVE THE FIRING RANGE COMPARED with the firing range of the guns of heavy cruisers.
        The Italians were more honest than the Japanese.
        They designed light cruisers, which, in the process of completion, could be rebuilt into heavy ones.
        The Italians designed and built real light cruisers, but which could successfully withstand heavy ones.
  11. beeper
    beeper 3 September 2020 13: 31 New
    0
    I really liked this Article by Roman Skomorokhov! good
    From childhood in love (maybe this is because of similar southern temperaments and children's passion for the artistic work of the Italian Renaissance masters ?! winked ) into the elegant design of the Italian school of shipbuilding and our Soviet counterparts - the leader of the destroyers "Tashkent (" blue cruiser ")" and light cruisers 26, 26 bis projects, and later, also bearing "Italian" features in their appearance, for example, " classic "destroyer 56 project! yes
    IMHO
  12. Job74
    Job74 13 October 2020 09: 47 New
    0
    I didn't really understand the allegory with the octopus and the globe. Apparently this kind of thoughts come to minds of sailors after several months of autonomy.