Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. "K" means "very bad"

73

Have you been waiting? I know they were waiting. We wrote in the comments. Well, it's time to talk about probably the most useless ships of the light cruiser class of World War II. These are worthy rivals to the Soviet cruisers, which stood in ports (with the rare exception, such as the "Red Caucasus") throughout the war. Only these ships tried to do something like that, but ...


To be fair, the K-class light cruisers did everything they could to accomplish their missions. Another question is that they could do little more than nothing.

But - as always, in order.


"Emden"

Here is the cruiser that led to the construction of ships of a new type. Even then, when it was built, in 1925, by the German naval it became clear to the commanders that the cruiser was not a cake and was outdated even on the slipway. The only thing more or less the ship possessed was speed. Everything else needed improvement. Especially weapons and armor.

And while the Emden was being completed, by the way, the first large German ship of the post-war period, the designers were imprisoned for the development of the cruiser, which will have to replace the Emden. Faster, more powerful and generally. The main thing is not to go beyond the limit of 6 tons, which was valid for Germany under the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

It is clear that miracles do not happen, and therefore you have to sacrifice something.

But the Germans would not have been Germans if they had not shown miracles in terms of engineering solutions. It is clear that the only action that would solve all the problems would be to disregard the terms of the Versailles Treaty and the construction of a ship in the absence of restrictions on tonnage. However, so far no one would have allowed Germany to do this (1925 - not 1933), they had to get out as best they could.

And the Germans managed a lot.


First, the tonnage of the ship was "slightly" overestimated. By a little bit, up to 6 metric tons.

Secondly, the cruising range was sacrificed. 7 miles at a cruising speed of 300 knots - this, in comparison with British light cruisers, which easily gave out twice the range, did not look very weighty.

However, the German designers were able to offer a very interesting move to increase the cruising range: between the propeller shafts, they managed to place two diesel engines of economic speed.

Original, but not very effective. Under diesels, the ship developed only 10,5 knots. In addition, the cruiser could go either on diesel engines or on boilers. Plus, there was a need for two types of fuel: oil for boilers and solar oil for diesel engines. Alas, diesel engines do not work on heavy oil, just as diesel fuel boilers are also not to their taste.

Therefore, the cruising range under diesel engines with a full refueling of 18 miles remained a theoretical parameter. This is if all containers are filled with solarium. But this is also not a solution, you must agree. Still, a cruiser, not a dry cargo ship. Moreover, anyone, even a British battleship, could catch up with the ship at such a speed. Refueling from 000 tons of oil and 1200 tons of diesel fuel was considered normal.

Plus, the process of switching from one power plant to another became a big problem. Connecting diesel engines instead of turbines took several minutes, but when it was necessary to make the reverse transition, it was necessary to align the propeller shafts with respect to the turbines. And the acceleration of the turbines to operating power took some more time. In general, the use of diesel engines in a combat situation was not something that was not welcomed, it was ruled out.

But we will talk about how convenient and safe it was in the article about Leipzig.

However, in 1926, a contract was signed for the construction of three light cruisers, which were built and, when launched, were named "Konigsberg" (April 1929), "Karlsruhe" (November 1929) and "Cologne" (January 1930).


The ships turned out to be completely identical in terms of size. Length 174 meters, width 16,8 m, draft with standard displacement - 5,4 m, with full - 6,3 m.

The power plant looked original, but not impressive. Compared to light Italian cruisers, everything looked quite modest. The main unit consisted of six oil boilers and turbo-gear units with a total capacity of 68 hp. and allowed the ship to reach speeds of up to 200 knots.

The auxiliary unit consisted of two 10-cylinder MAN diesels with a total capacity of 1 hp. Under diesels, cruisers could accelerate to a speed of 800 knots.


Reservations.

Here you can draw an analogy with the Italian cruisers "Condottieri" of the first series. That is, there was no armor.

The main belt of the ship was 50 mm thick, plus lining on it with a thickness of up to 20 mm, at best, gave 70 mm. The deck had a thickness of 20 mm, above the ammunition storage there was an additional 20 mm booking.

The turrets had armor of 30 mm in the front and 20 mm in a circle. The conning tower had a frontal thickness of 100 mm, side walls 30 mm.

In general, the booking could be called splinterproof, nothing more.

The crew of the K-class cruiser in peacetime consisted of 514 people: 21 officers and 493 lower ranks. Naturally, in wartime, the number of the crew increased and in 1945 reached 850 people on the "Cologne".

Armament.

The main caliber was represented by new 150 mm guns with a barrel length of 65 calibers. The guns fired shells weighing 45,5 kg with an initial speed of 960 m / s for a maximum range of 14 nautical miles (26 km), rate of fire - 6-8 rounds per minute.

Combat ships. Cruisers. "K" means "very bad"

The guns were arranged in three three-gun towers in a very strange way. Two towers were in the stern and one in the bow. This was justified by the fact that the cruiser was entrusted with the functions of a light reconnaissance ship, therefore the battle was supposed to be conducted on a retreat.

The aft gun turrets were not installed in line; to improve the forward firing sectors, the first aft turret was slightly shifted to the left side, and the second to the right.



Controversial design. In order to fire on the forward course from the stern tower, the ship had to be turned. And if we consider that the tower was not turned to the maximum angle so as not to hook the superstructures, then in an amicable way, only the bow tower could be used for course shooting.

Not the most powerful volley, you must agree.

The auxiliary artillery was even weaker than that of the Emden. There were at least three 105-mm guns and two 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. On K-class cruisers, for a start, they decided to do with two 88-mm guns for all occasions.

True, in the 30s it was decided to strengthen the universal artillery. And on the ships they installed three paired installations with 88-mm guns. The first twin 88-mm unit was installed in front of the "B" turret of the main caliber, the other two - on platforms to the right and left of the stern superstructure.


In 1934-35, during the modernization of the cruiser, they received 4 paired 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and 8 single 20-mm anti-aircraft guns. And the end of the war "Cologne" met with 10 automatic cannons 37 mm, 18 anti-aircraft guns 20 mm and 4 "Bofors" 40 mm.

Torpedo armament could be the envy of any destroyer. 4 three-tube torpedo tubes, first with a caliber of 500 mm, and then 533 mm. All cruisers had the ability to take on board 120 mines of the barrage and equipment for setting them.


The main caliber artillery fire control was carried out using three optical rangefinders with a base of 6 m. But the cruisers became a testing ground for the first German radars. In 1935, a GEMA search radar was installed at Cologne, operating on a wavelength of 50 cm. The experiments with the radar were generally recognized as successful, but the station itself was not very reliable in operation, and therefore the radar was dismantled from the ship.

In 1938, the Seetakt radar was installed on the "Konigsberg". And again the experiment was recognized as successful, if not for the reliability of the radar. The radar was also dismantled.

The second attempt with "Cologne" in terms of radar was carried out in 1941. This time they installed the FuMO-21 radar, with which the ship served the entire war.

In general, the ships turned out to be very strange in terms of the power plant and weapons. We'll talk about the power plant later, but it's about time the ships' combat career.

Combat application.

"Konigsberg"



He was baptized by fire on September 3-30, 1939 during Operation Westwall, during which the ships of the Kriegsmarine carried out mining operations in the North Sea.

On November 12-13, 1939, she provided mining of the Thames estuary together with the light cruiser Nuremberg.

At the beginning of April 1940 he took part in Operation Weserubung (invasion of Norway) together with the cruiser Cologne.

On April 9, 1940, having on board 750 troops, he successfully landed in the Bergen area. While retreating, he came under fire from 210-mm Norwegian coastal batteries and received three direct hits. Since the cruiser's armor was not designed to be hit by shells of this caliber, the shells hitting the boiler room caused flooding, extinguished the boilers, and the ship lost its course. In addition, the ship's power plant, steering and fire control system were out of order. Only three shells, albeit a large caliber.

The command put the cruiser in the dock of the port of Bergen for repairs, where on April 10, 1940, two squadrons of Skewa bombers achieved three direct hits on the cruiser and three hits near the side.

As a result, the hull of the ship could not withstand, the cruiser received a large amount of water, and, turning upside down with a keel, sank.

It was raised in 1942, but it did not come to transport to Germany, and therefore it was disposed of by the Norwegians in 1945.

Karlsruhe



The combat career of this ship, to put it mildly, did not work out. Unlike its predecessor with the same name.

The cruiser took part in Operation Weserubung, aiming to capture the port of Kristiansand. On board were placed several hundred paratroopers, with whom on April 9, "Karsruhe", despite the shelling of Norwegian coastal batteries, broke into the harbor of Kristiansand and landed troops. The city's garrison capitulated.

At 19:21 the same day, "Karlsruhe" went to sea, accompanied by three destroyers, heading back to Germany. The ship sailed at a speed of 10 knots, performing an anti-submarine zigzag. The British submarine Truant attacked the cruiser, firing a volley of XNUMX torpedo tubes.

Only one torpedo hit the cruiser, but it was very successful, from the point of view of the British, by turning the stern. The crew moved to the escort ships, and the destroyer "Greif" finished off the cruiser with two torpedoes.

Only one torpedo hit the target, but the damage was so serious that the crew moved to the destroyers Luchs and Seeadler. The commander left the ship last, after which the destroyer Greif fired two torpedoes at the damaged ship.

"Cologne"



She began her combat service together with the "Konigsberg" laying mines on September 3-30, 1939.

In October-November 1939 he escorted the battleships "Gneisenau" and "Scharnhorst" in the North Sea to the coast of Norway.

In April 1940, he landed troops in Bergen together with the "Konigsberg", but did not receive any damage, unlike the sistership.

In September 1941, he was transferred to the Baltic in order to prevent the Soviet fleet from leaving for neutral Sweden. He supported the landing operations of German troops on the Moonsund Islands, fired at the Soviet positions at Cape Ristna on Hiiumaa Island.

On August 6, 1942, he was transferred to Norway, to Narvik, to replace the battleship "Luttsov". Together with the heavy cruisers Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper, he formed a detachment that was supposed to attack the northern convoys, but the operations were canceled.

In 1943 she was transferred to the Baltic, withdrawn from the fleet, used as a training ship.

He completed his last combat mission in October 1944, deploying 90 mines in the Skagerrak Strait.

Sunk by an American aviation in Wilhelmshaven, sat on the ground, did not completely submerge.


In April 1945, the main caliber towers "B" and "C" fired on the advancing British troops for two nights. Shells and electricity were supplied from the shore.


In general, it cannot be said that the K-class cruisers were useful ships. Practice has shown that it is impossible to use these ships in the North because of the over-lightened welded hull, the cruisers were also not able to fight off aircraft with such modest anti-aircraft weapons at first, not very high speed - it all came together. A 100% unsuccessful career.

The only thing that the K-class cruisers were capable of was playing the role of an armed and fast amphibious transport during the operation in Norway. And even then the loss of two cruisers out of three is not an indicator of success.

In general, the very idea of ​​building such kind of ships was not very good. However, the Germans did not calm down and began work to improve their light cruisers.

Type "E": "Leipzig" and "Nuremberg"



This is a kind of "correction of errors", that is, an attempt to somehow improve the characteristics of cruisers, especially in terms of survivability and speed.

These two ships were very different from type "K", on the one hand, and inherited almost all the shortcomings of their predecessors, on the other.

External differences: one chimney instead of two or more straight stem of the "Atlantic" type. Well, the hulls of the ships became a little longer, 181 meters versus 174. The standard displacement is 7291 tons, the total displacement is 9829 tons, the draft at the standard displacement is 5,05 m, with the full displacement - 5,59 m.

The main difference was inside. A slightly different power plant, a slightly different layout. A third propeller was added, which was driven by two seven-cylinder two-stroke diesel engines from MAN with a total capacity of 12 hp.

The idea was not bad, the main course under the turbines on two propellers, economical on diesel engines on a separate propeller. In theory. In practice, the moment of transition from diesels to turbines still for some time deprived the ship of its progress and made it difficult to control. It turned out that it is very difficult to "pick up" the speed of the turbines on diesel engines. As a result, very often ships at such a moment were completely deprived of their course, which eventually resulted in an emergency.

But on the whole, this combined setup has proven to be very useful. When in 1939 Leipzig received a British torpedo exactly in the area of ​​the boiler room and the cars stopped (the left one is clear for what reason, and the right one because of the general drop in steam pressure), the urgently launched diesel engines allowed to develop a speed of 15 knots and leave the dangerous area ... But the average speed on diesels was still around 10 knots. That is not enough.

Well, an epic stories with the combined installation, an incident occurred on the night of 14-15 October 1944. The case is well-known, when the heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen", returning from Klaipeda, where he fired at the Soviet troops, rammed the "Leipzig", which was going to the Skagerrak strait to lay mines. It was at night, in the fog, why the radar posts of both ships were silent, it is difficult to say, but the Eugen crashed into the Leipzig all the way, which ... stood, switching the main gearbox from diesels to turbines!




As you can see in the photo, Leipzig hit exactly the center of the hull between the bow superstructure and the tube. The bow engine rooms were destroyed, the cruiser took 1600 tons of water. 11 crew members were killed (according to other sources - 27), 6 were missing, 31 were injured. At "Eugen" the stem was destroyed, several sailors were injured.






The ships could not disengage on their own, so they swam all night together with the letter "T". Towards morning tugs arrived from Danzig. Only with their help was it possible to disengage.

The Leipzig was dragged on a cable to Gotenshafen, where the damage was hastily patched up and no further repairs began. The cruiser was turned into a self-propelled floating battery, since on diesel engines it could still give its 8-10 knots.

Combat use of the cruiser "Leipzig"


First use - September 3-30, 1939, Operation Westwall, laying minefields in the North Sea.

On November 7, 1939, Leipzig collided with the training ship Bremse. The damage was of moderate severity, but even then it became clear that the ship still had the planid.


In November-December 1939, he ensured the laying of mines at the mouth of the Humber River, went to the retinue of the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and laid mines in the Newcastle region. After laying mines, he received a torpedo from the British submarine "Samone", but safely reached the base.

In September 1943 he was transferred to the Baltic, where he planted mines and fired at Soviet troops. October 15, 1944 collided with the heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen", was towed to Gotenhafen (Gdynia) for temporary repair. In March 1945, he fired at the Soviet troops advancing on Gdynia, having used up the main caliber ammunition, took on board the wounded and evacuated civilians and crawled away on diesel engines in Apenrade (Denmark).

On July 9, 1946 she was sunk in Skagerrak.

"Nuremberg"



"Nuremberg" ... "Nuremberg" is generally not very logical to equate with all the previous ones. In fact, the "Nuremberg" was much larger than all its predecessors, by about 10% in size and displacement. Actually, this is not surprising, since the "Nuremberg" was built in 1934, five years later than "Leipzig".

However, the increase in size and displacement did not affect survivability or any other characteristics at all. Alas. The full length of the "Nuremberg" is 181,3 m, the width is 16,4 m, the draft at a standard displacement is 4,75 m, and at full displacement is 5,79 m. The standard displacement is 7882 and the total displacement is 9965 tons.

The power plant was also different from the same "Leipzig". The boilers were the same, TZA from Deutsche Werke, but the diesel group consisted of four 7-cylinder M-7 diesel engines from MAN with a capacity of 3100 hp. Under diesels, the cruiser developed a full speed of 16,5 knots.

The booking was disappointingly identical to the K type booking, with no improvement.

The armament was also absolutely identical to the K-type cruisers, the only difference was that the placement of the towers was the same as on the K-type cruisers, but the aft towers were located strictly on the longitudinal axis, without offset from the center axis.


Auxiliary artillery consisted of the same 88-mm guns in three twin mounts, small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery consisted of 37 mm and 20 mm automatic cannons.

Radars. It was more interesting here than on Type "K". At the end of 1941, a FuMO-21 radar was installed on the Nuremberg. In 1943, it was replaced by the FuMO-22, the antenna of which was mounted on the foremast platform. In the upper part of the bow superstructure, an antenna for the fire control radar of 37-mm anti-aircraft guns was mounted, and the antennas of the FuMB-1 warning system were installed along the perimeter of the superstructure, which warned of irradiation with enemy radars. At the end of 1944, the FuMO-63 air target detection radar was mounted on the cruiser.

Combat career of the cruiser "Nuremberg"


The beginning of his combat career - together with the rest of the cruisers, on setting mines on September 3-30, 1939.


In November-December 1939, he provided mine laying in the Thames estuary, in the Newcastle area, was damaged by a torpedo in the bow from the British submarine Salmone.

From August 1940 to November 1942 he performed various tasks in the Baltic. In November 1942-April 1943 he was in Narvik, in the Tirpitz group. In May 1943 he was transferred back to the Baltic. In January 1945 he set up a minefield in the Skagerrak, transferred to Copenhagen, where he was captured by the British in May 1945.

On November 5, 1945, according to reparations, transferred to the representatives of the Soviet Union, renamed the cruiser "Admiral Makarov". In 1946 she was commissioned into the Baltic Fleet, used as a training ship.


In 1959 it was excluded from the lists of the fleet and in 1961 it was cut into metal.

In general, it is difficult to adequately assess the entire project. The construction of the Leipzig began before the K-class cruisers entered service. But even then it became clear that the cruiser was so-so. Why it was necessary to lay down Leipzig and Nuremberg is hard to say. Perhaps just undercover games for a budget. Perhaps something else.

By the time the Nuremberg was laid down, all the shortcomings of the K-cruisers had become apparent. And the fact that the K-class cruisers could not be used for cruising operations did not raise any doubts at all either in terms of seaworthiness, or armor, or weapons.

The only thing that could justify the massive construction of such controversial ships is that they were better than the Emden, and there was nothing better than them at all.

It would be worthwhile to wait and build something more substantial, like taking the Admiral Hipper project and just shrink it.

But the leadership of the fleet (and maybe even higher) did not want to wait, so they built five very controversial ships.


And it is not surprising that all German light cruisers turned out to be of little use in northern waters due to their frankly weak hull, and their small cruising range did not allow sending ships to raider operations.

And the ships naturally turned out to be completely not tenacious in battle. One cannot but agree with this, because three 210-mm shells or one British (not the most powerful for sure) torpedo is not fatal damage. Nevertheless…

It remains only to state that the project of the K-class cruisers contained a huge number of flaws and shortcomings. And even with the revision in "Leipzig" and "Nuremberg" it was not possible to get rid of them.

German cruisers lost the most important thing - their survivability, which was the envy of the British in the First World War.

In general, it would be better to use metal for construction tanks Guderian, Wenck and Rommel. Honestly, there would be more benefits. Six light cruisers (including the Emden) were unable to exert even the slightest effect on the situation at sea, but absorbed so many resources that it is simply impossible not to regret it.
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sav
    sav 10 August 2020 06: 02
    +3
    Thanks for continuing the Loop hi
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 07
      0
      For the continuation, of course, thanks.
      But I would like the author to get acquainted with historiography before writing the next material.
      At least, domestic, affordable.
      Trubitsin, Kofman (blessed memory of him), and Patyanin wrote on this topic.
  2. 27091965
    27091965 10 August 2020 06: 07
    14
    Well, it's time to talk about probably the most useless ships of the light cruiser class of World War II.


    It is difficult to agree with these, the warship is being created based on the country's capabilities and views on its further use. It is impossible to compare only performance characteristics. Based on the numbers, Germany should have been defeated not in 1945, but in 1939-1940.
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 10 August 2020 10: 19
      +2
      And who, besides the USSR, needed the defeat of Germany in 1939? good
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 10 August 2020 16: 16
        +3
        Quote: Siberian54
        And who, besides the USSR, needed the defeat of Germany in 1939?

        enchanting stupidity.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 11 August 2020 09: 16
          +1
          The Wehrmacht combat vehicle rolled up to the borders of my state, and at this time there is a "strange war" in which no one is shooting, maximum leaflets from both sides, they are waiting for when the war will begin in the east, even the Poles under silence did not regret it, just in 1939-1940 year .. And you are "enchanting stupidity"
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 10 August 2020 18: 14
      +3
      It is difficult to agree with these, the warship is being created based on the country's capabilities and views on its further use. It is impossible to compare only performance characteristics. Based on the numbers, Germany should have been defeated not in 1945, but in 1939-1940.

      This is an afterthought.
      At the beginning of 1939, Plan Z was adopted, according to which 10 battleships and 4 aircraft carriers were to be built in Germany, not counting the rest.
      And all this by 1948.
      That is, Hitler initially saw the main enemy of the British and French.
      But they did not let him do this and declared war earlier, using aggression against Poland.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 11 August 2020 16: 35
        +1
        Quote: Arzt
        That is, Hitler initially saw the main enemy of the British and French.


        "...Raeder's immediate problem was what kind of fleet Germany should build. In 1935 he learned from Hitler that he intended to maintain peace with England, Italy and Japan and that France and Russia are potential enemies of Germany ..... "

        ... On November 4, 1937, Hitler informed his commanders in chief of his true intentions regarding Germany. He expounded the theories "Lebensraum" and "Weltpolitik" as the reasons for the creation of "Greater Germany". He assumed the use of force and for the first time called England "a hated enemy". The British Empire was to be the ultimate goal for the Wehrmacht and it was only a matter of deciding how and when
        .. "
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 10 August 2020 20: 18
      0
      it would have been better to use metal to build tanks for Guderian, Wenck and Rommel. Honestly, there would be more benefits. Six light cruisers (including the Emden) were unable to exert even the slightest effect on the situation at sea, but absorbed so many resources that it is simply impossible not to regret it.

      HERE AND ANSWER ---- AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AGAINST Strategic Missile Forces + VKS-PRO + TANKS
      did ours learn from the Germans?
  3. Alceers
    Alceers 10 August 2020 07: 16
    +4
    Novel repetitions in the text in the paragraph about 10 torpedoes
  4. Serg65
    Serg65 10 August 2020 08: 12
    13
    it's time to talk about what are probably the most useless ships of the light cruiser class of World War II. These are worthy rivals to the Soviet cruisers that have been in ports (with the rarest exception, such as the Red Caucasus), throughout the war. Only these ships tried to do something like that

    Roman, I certainly understand that now your admirers will come running in and praise you to the skies, but excuse me ... no marinist of you!
    I have the honor hi
  5. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 10 August 2020 08: 17
    +7
    I am a land person, but I read the cycle with interest. Although they scold the author - they say copy-paste, he adds too much from himself. I'm curious. There is no time to delve into reference books, and so - readily available.
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 11
      +1
      Even in the so-called "accessible reading", that is, popular science literature, even in this volume, you can fully disclose the topic.
      For example, from this material it is completely incomprehensible why cruisers of these types could not be used in northern waters.
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 10 August 2020 09: 00
    21
    In general, it would be better to use metal to build tanks for Guderian, Wenck and Rommel. Honestly, there would be more benefits. Six light cruisers (including Emden) were unable to exert even the slightest effect on the situation at sea, but absorbed so many resources that it is simply impossible not to regret it.
    The author, before making such global conclusions, should, for a start, try to master the history of the construction of light cruisers in all countries in the early 1920s.
    And about metal for tanks to Guderian in 1926 - it's congenial. In 1926, there were no tanks in Germany. Pz.Kpfw. I appeared in 1934.
  7. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 10 August 2020 09: 42
    -5
    Thanks a lot, Roman!
    I was looking forward to an article about German cruisers.
    Very instructive looking at what happens if you want to stick your exorbitant Wishlist into a pitiful 6000 T.
    The first system-wide conclusion: a cruiser (even a very light one) does not fit into 6000 T. A minimum of 8000 T is needed (which was confirmed by the development of Spähkreuzer 1938).
    Second, the combined propulsion system is complex and requires separation of the shafts to ensure full, cruising and economic progress. The only way out for small-tonnage ships of that time was the use of an electric ship powered by diesel generators.
    Third, the armament of such a ship should ensure the destruction of the light forces of a potential enemy, and not mythical "reconnaissance" (also to me, spies) and raider missions.
    I would like to note that the boilers consume diesel fuel with great pleasure, so the Fritzes were simply stingy with the single fuel.
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 10 August 2020 10: 22
      0
      Light cruisers of the Aretusa or Amphion class with a standard displacement of less than 7000 tons were full-fledged ships with balanced parameters. Likewise, the Japanese Agano class Despite poor armor, they were successful ships.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 10 August 2020 10: 36
        -1
        Brand watch or fast minesags
        No speed, no weapons. One "savings".
        A ship and a cruiser (despite the fact that a cruiser is a ship) are different concepts.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 10 August 2020 10: 56
          +1
          Neither one nor the other.
          Aretheus - destroyer assassins
          Yahagi - destroyer leaders
          Armament adequate to tasks
          Yahaga has no speed? Delightfully
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 10 August 2020 11: 42
            +1
            You answered accurately enough:
            Contact with the cruiser for this pair is death! And without speed for such "scouts" and "leaders" - certain death.
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 10 August 2020 12: 40
              +2
              Which cruiser?
              The same British have as many as four main types of light cruisers.
              Linder wagon fleet communication
              Aretheusa is a cheaper and smaller Linder with an emphasis on squadron service.
              Didot - the development of Aretheusa with an attempt to universalize the GC
              Towns as an answer to Mogami
              All cruisers are quite versatile, but each has a niche in which it is more optimal than others.
              There is no room for all the tasks of the Towns. Even the Americans could get by with just the big Brooklyn and Clevelands, but they also built lighter Atlantes.

              Yahaga has a trump card in the form of "long spears". It is better not to get involved in a dump with him. At a speed of 35 knots, he will run away from everyone except the French and Italians, and even those will rather beat them on any decent wave.
              1. Victor Leningradets
                Victor Leningradets 10 August 2020 13: 15
                +1
                In my amateurish opinion:
                Linder - the lower limit of the cruisers that can fend for themselves (and even then not always - Sydney);
                Dido - the prototype of a small warship of the future - is not suitable for the battle with Cleveland, and even more so with Baltimore;
                Aretheusa is a gray lord, not a cruiser.
                Yahagi is a Japanese misunderstanding, put three three-gun turrets on Aoba - get a light cruiser that you need (or not at all). Japan is Mioko - Takao - Ibuki. The concept is implemented here, the rest is not too clever improvisation.
                If you are spending the country's budget, then try not to sacrifice efficiency while saving. Otherwise, it turns out: "I had little money, and I just threw it away."
                1. Engineer
                  Engineer 10 August 2020 13: 49
                  +2
                  There is such a moment - the London Maritime Agreement.
                  According to it, the total displacement of cruisers with guns of caliber allowed for construction in Great Britain is 192 thousand tons. A lot, but the British would like even more.
                  The British were not very happy with the Linder - 5 liners were worth 4 counties. But they exhausted the limit on the construction of the TKR very quickly.
                  The British considered Linder somewhat redundant for the squadron service. and Considered Aretyusa more optimal. Including because, within the limits of restrictions, you can have more ships
                  If it were not for the Mogami, then it was the Aretheuses who should have evolved.
                  According to your concept, there is nothing between the 10-ton cruise ship and the destroyer. This makes a certain sense, but economically only amers can do it. But they didn't do that either.
                  The concept is implemented here, the rest is not too clever improvisation.

                  Japanese KRL is precisely the concept. We put on torpedoes, which means we need something fast with a low silhouette and also with torpedoes to lead the destroyers. So we got small ships. Cheap. And a lot.
                  They also clearly believed that a two-gun turret with 8-inches was better than a three-gun turret with six. Therefore, they immediately re-armed the Mogami as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
                  1. unknown
                    unknown 10 August 2020 21: 22
                    +1
                    Aleksey Orel wrote very well about the Agano-class cruisers in his monograph "Japanese light cruisers of the Agano-class. Written very well. There is no point in retelling.
                    The monograph is available on the Internet. To read and download free.
                    1. Engineer
                      Engineer 10 August 2020 22: 00
                      0
                      I seem to follow this book quite clearly))
                      1. unknown
                        unknown 10 August 2020 22: 48
                        -1
                        And rightly so.
                        Although, the authorities are sometimes wrong.
                        This is evidenced by the work of our Belarusian friend from the site of alternative history "Mysterious Peresveti, or eliminating meter errors".
                      2. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 10 August 2020 23: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: ignoto
                        Alexei Orel wrote very well about the Agano-class cruisers in his monograph Japanese light cruisers of the Agano-class.

                        Quote: Engineer
                        I seem to follow this book quite clearly))

                        Quote: ignoto
                        Although, the authorities are sometimes wrong.

                        It's good that Volodya Sidorenko does not see this .... :)
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 August 2020 18: 23
              +4
              Quote: Engineer
              Even the Americans could get by with just the big Brooklyn and Clevelands, but they also built lighter Atlantes.

              So "Clevelands" and "Atlanta", EMNIP, have one ancestor - KRL 1938.
              USN wanted a single light cruiser - to and a Swiss, and a reaper, and do not play a gamer... uh, that is, a KRL with a displacement of 8 kt with universal 6 "guns. Oooo, said the American industry - and offered to choose any two of the three: either KRL with 6 "in 8 kt, or KRL with 5" universal GK in the same 8 kt. Af-fanget, - said USN - give two! And then the abolition of the restrictions arrived in time, so that the 6 "KRL no longer needed to be crammed into 8 kt.
              And USN ended up with a standard large 6 "KRL (Cleveland) and 5" scout leader EM (Atlanta). smile
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 10 August 2020 19: 20
                +1
                Ugh, shit, said USN, give me two!

          2. unknown
            unknown 10 August 2020 21: 19
            +1
            Against the Italians "Aretusa" looked worthy, but the Japanese against the Americans did not.
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 18
      0
      Light cruisers of the "Aretuza" class had a standard displacement of 5220 tons (first pair) and 5270 tons (second pair). The ships turned out to be balanced and performed well in the Mediterranean.
      The concept of Agano-class cruisers turned out to be erroneous, the ships could not prove themselves.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 10 August 2020 09: 47
    +8
    The same photographs were inserted into the text several times, and the last one, without knowing why, is an Italian light cruiser of the "Capitani Romani" class - "Scipione Africano" in 1943.
    1. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 10 August 2020 12: 27
      +3
      Really. After a series of articles on the Condottieri, an article on Captain-Romani would be logical.
      1. deddem
        deddem 10 August 2020 19: 06
        +2
        I don’t know how for the author, but for me personally the “captains” are the same leaders, an analogue of “Mogador” and “Tashkent” (in fact, the latter was built on the basis of the GTR project, which was rejected in favor of the “our everything” Pugliese project).
  • Engineer
    Engineer 10 August 2020 10: 58
    +1
    There is a widespread belief that the Germans after WWII forgot how to build ships. Not that I agree with this 100%, but there is a fair amount of truth in this.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 August 2020 11: 09
      +6
      Quote: Engineer
      There is a widespread belief that the Germans after WWII forgot how to build ships. Not that I agree with this 100%, but there is a fair amount of truth in this.

      Here, perhaps, we should talk about the extreme danger of gaps in the development of naval weapons. For a number of objective reasons, Germany could not fully develop the fleet after WWI, and as a result, it was not able to properly test and evaluate a number of the latest technologies - the same boilers with high steam parameters, etc. Which led to the fact that the German surface fleet of the WWII was an extremely strange sight ...
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 10 August 2020 11: 23
        +2
        It goes without saying.
        But they were simple with aviation and with art. Yes, they used tricks, but it was still hard in terms of development opportunities. Nevertheless, aviation and art in the war they have from good to excellent.
        Of course, ships are technically and technologically much more complicated. But everyone expected more from the industrial power # 2-3.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 August 2020 11: 43
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          But they were simple with aviation and with art.

          What are we talking about. But it turned out that the industrial power was able to overcome them by creating quite remarkable aircraft, cannons, and tanks. But with the fleet - it did not work, probably because
          Quote: Engineer
          Of course, ships are technically and technologically much more complicated.
          1. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 10 August 2020 23: 47
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But with the fleet - did not work

            Well, here you can draw historical parallels - Germany, whatever you say, lost the naval war with a whistle, even if it was local wines under Jutland. And we had Tsushima. And here we need to think about what and how they began to build what in Russia and what in Germany after such bitter experiences.
        2. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 10 August 2020 22: 40
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          Nevertheless, aviation and art in the war they have from good to excellent.

          A controversial point. German 105-mm semi-cannon / under-howitzer for all occasions, somehow not very much. Stuck like a main strike aircraft? They also did not rejoice for long, by 1943 it almost disappeared.
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 28
      +2
      This widespread opinion is rather erroneous.
      The Germans themselves stated that they were building a fleet of the High Seas.
      However, competent researchers came to the conclusion that the Germans were building a fleet of the Open NORTH Sea.
      German ships have always had problems with seaworthiness, regardless of the class of ships.
      A few exceptions, these are ships originally intended for colonial service.
      For example, armored cruisers of the Sharnghost class.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 10 August 2020 21: 56
        0
        About the post-WWI period
        Hochseeflotte in the past
        1. unknown
          unknown 10 August 2020 22: 41
          +1
          Of course.
          But German ships have always had problems with seaworthiness.
          You can't lose a skill if you don't.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 10 August 2020 11: 11
    12
    and Rommel
    Rommel was certainly a handsome man in Africa, but it would have been better to have captured Malta and Gibraltar, even as a landing party like Crete, even though the Kriegsmarine as Norway. And the same Norway without light cruisers could not be mastered. As for three 210-mm suitcases, how many of the previously described heavier classmates would have woken up? And for the combined power plant, all the same, respect and respect to the burghers - a chuyka for the future, they were not afraid of trial and error, but they did it.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 August 2020 18: 26
      +4
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Rommel, of course, was a handsome man in Africa, but it would have been better to have captured Malta and Gibraltar, even as a landing party like Crete, or even the Kriegsmarine as Norway.

      To do this, you need to remove Rommel. smile
      For the offer "Yes, you don't need to take Malta: give me the forces allocated for this - and I will reach Suez, and there Malta will surrender itself"came from desert fox.
  • Romka47
    Romka47 10 August 2020 12: 12
    +2
    -Waited?
    -Yes captain laughing er
    The article is good as always!

    That's just in this moment:

    Only one torpedo hit the cruiser, but it was very successful, from the point of view of the British, by turning the stern. The crew moved to the escort ships, and the destroyer "Greif" finished off the cruiser with two torpedoes.

    Only one torpedo hit the target, but the damage was so serious that the crew moved to the destroyers Luchs and Seeadler. The commander left the ship last, after which the destroyer Greif fired two torpedoes at the damaged ship.


    As if a paragraph from similar articles about the same
  • Doctor
    Doctor 10 August 2020 14: 15
    -3
    cruiser "not cake"
    Roman, probably the cruiser is "wrong"?

    The article is excellent as always.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 August 2020 18: 29
      +4
      Quote: Arzt
      cruiser "not cake"
      Roman, probably the cruiser is "wrong"?

      This is a well-established network expression - "no longer a cake", connecting two meanings: "not the same"And"no longer so tasty good as before".
      Yours sincerely, member of the bore club. hi
      Among members of the bore club, he is considered a dangerous intellectual.
      © Jeeves and Worcester
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 38
      +3
      The main topic of the article has not been disclosed.
      Was it difficult to write that the main problem of cruisers was the maximum lightening of the structure. Not only was about 85 percent of the joints made by welding (and this was in the second half of the 20s!), And even superstructures were included in the calculation of the longitudinal strength, so the ratio of length to width of the hull was taken as eleven to one (which any destroyer would envy). As a result, even the sheets of the deck flooring were dispersed during strong excitement.
      What kind of seaworthiness here.
  • Crimea26
    Crimea26 10 August 2020 16: 53
    +3
    I was very surprised how the Leipzig hull withstood and did not break from the Eugen impact (according to the photo - more than half the hull width "sank" (according to the strength of materials such a "jumper" would quickly burst). And then I saw the Prince's nose. .... it looks like the armor belt turned out to be strong.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 10 August 2020 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: Crimea26
      about the photo - more than half the width of the case "sluggishly" (according to the strength of materials, such a "jumper" would quickly burst).

      "Eugen" drove over the bulkhead onto sh. 191,4, if you look at the drawings and photos, it turns out that the KRT entered the Leipzig building by about 10 meters.
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 10 August 2020 17: 06
    +6
    [Alas, diesel engines do not work on heavy oil,]
    Wow! Do diesel engines know about this ?!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 August 2020 18: 32
      +3
      Quote: Grossvater
      [Alas, diesel engines do not work on heavy oil,]
      Wow! Do diesel engines know about this ?!

      They hide it carefully. Remember the classics:
      They wrote out ninety-third gasoline for the diesel and drove off. Izya and I decided to dock the steamer.
      © Zhvanetsky
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 10 August 2020 17: 21
    +5
    Ships are like ships. Surplus armament for displacement. British "naval" cruisers carried six main guns, due to this they had a stronger hull, better seaworthiness and cruising range. The armor is no better. With the reservation, in general, you need to look not only for the thickness but also for the area of ​​the reservation. The Germans seem to have had it more. And behind the belt is the bulkhead and the bevel of the armored deck.
    A pair of three 210 mm shells for a 6,5 kt ship is a lot, I want to remind you that Hiei was disabled with eight-inch guns.
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 40
      +3
      Of the three 210 mm shells that hit the cruiser, only one hit the hull, two others hit the superstructure.
      The damage was assessed as not severe.
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 46
      +2
      The British managed to create a very good cruiser in this displacement.
      Argentine training cruiser "Argentina".
      Displacement standard 6500 tons.
      Armament: 9 * 152mm, 4 * 102mm, 2 * 3 533mm, and 6 * 2 25mm assault rifle (!)
      Reservations: belt 76 mm, deck 51 mm (!).
      Speed ​​at full displacement is 30 knots.
      And no problems with seaworthiness.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 10 August 2020 22: 45
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        Speed ​​at full displacement is 30 knots.
        And no problems with seaworthiness.

        Such a speed for a WWII cruiser is already not enough.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 10 August 2020 23: 40
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Such a speed for a WWII cruiser is already not enough.

          How to know ...
          The question of the true speed of warships in real conditions is a big mystery.
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 10 August 2020 18: 08
    0
    "Ah" Emden ".. how much there is in this sound ..." Half a year of my life alone took to create his model for the War Thunder fleet soldier
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 10 August 2020 19: 01
      +1
      You are more careful there, other wives can read it. Or find by search am
    2. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 21: 54
      +2
      The Emden, oddly enough, turned out to be the most underestimated cruiser.
      For the European theater of war, he was well armored and armed.
      He did not have such problems with seaworthiness as his younger brothers in class, and could well be used in northern waters. As a platform for six-inch guns, it was much better than destroyers.
      And he could provide significant support to destroyers, for example, in the "New Year's battle".
      And in the North, it would have no less speed than destroyers.
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 10 August 2020 18: 09
    0
    Quote: Grossvater
    [Alas, diesel engines do not work on heavy oil,]
    Wow! Do diesel engines know about this ?!

    know! That is why I work either on fuel oil or on solar oil! On crude oil, NO!
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 August 2020 18: 17
    +6
    Um ... belay The article makes you think ... what It, of course, has favorites and not so much, but it would be worth writing about the Germans more carefully.
    A full-fledged modern cruiser project within the Versailles restrictions. According to the experience of the First World War, the purpose of the ship was to serve as a scout with a squadron and independent (raider) actions on ocean communications. With a limited displacement, the main emphasis was on armament and speed. It was immediately decided to equip the 3x3 cruiser with 150-mm turret mounts, powerful anti-aircraft and torpedo armament. Some weakening of armor protection was required to compensate for the load.

    T. Skomorokhov, cram into 6000t. 9 main guns and powerful torpedo armament still have to try. Even in comparison with the British, the armor belt, although it was a little thinner, had a much larger reservation area, unlike the Aretuz. And since the ship is a floating compromise within the limits, you have to pay for everything. So to meet the same "Cologne" with "Galatea" where the thread is in the North Sea in its conditions, then I would not bet on an Englishman ...
    On issues of survivability. If the "Leipzig" received the torpedo calmly reached the base, but the "Karlruhe" did not, then this only confirms the thesis that it is important WHERE the torpedo hits, and not how much and do not forget about the crew's damage control measures. The same with regards to 3 210 mm shells - the question is, would the Aretuza resist having received the same shells from the same distance to the same places. Everything is relative.
    And like the cherry on the cake - it's not the ships who are fighting, but the people. If the ship is at war with the wrong enemy not in the conditions planned for it, then there is nothing to be surprised that the ships do not meet the assigned tasks.
    In terms of analytics, a two with a minus - the topic is not fully disclosed. The design conditions, tasks, technical points are not indicated, which reveal why the ships turned out like this, and not otherwise.
    Build the Germans balanced ships in the allotted displacement, they would have gotten their own analogue "Aretuz". And so ... Yes, they were too clever with KTU, but this is a desire to shove a diesel engine for economic progress, because there are restrictions, because of which a decent piece in the weight load was gobbled up and armor with strength suffered, but 9 main battery barrels are something ...
    So, to identify the strongest "Aretuza" in her weight category, I did not manage to meet with an opponent, but you can write on paper smile
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 22: 01
      +2
      The Germans believed that the main reason for the death of "Karlruhe" was the poor preparation of the crew for the fight for survivability.
      "Aretusa" is lighter by more than a thousand tons. In the K-type displacement, the British created the Argentina training cruiser based on the Aretusa, which proves that a balanced cruiser can be built in this displacement.
  • Potter
    Potter 10 August 2020 19: 20
    +6
    Article minus for the first paragraph. About Soviet cruisers. Ignorance of military history is no excuse. All Black Sea cruisers that could sail and fight swam and fought. The Baltic cruisers simply had nowhere to sail. If Roman thinks that they should have reached the first minefield and drowned there, this is his misfortune. Kirov and Maxim Gorky, and even the flooded Petropavlovsk / Tallinn were shelling the land front throughout the blockade. Pacific cruisers entered service during the war. Did you itch to write nasty things about the Russian Navy?
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 22: 16
      +3
      In this war, everything that was "on the move" fought.
      The British have outdated cruisers of types "C", "D", "E".
      Americans - like "Omaha"
      The Dutch - like "Java"
      We have "Svetlana"
      The Japanese have not only "5500 - thousanders". but even like "Tenryu"
      And only the Germans used Emden as a training vehicle.
      Although, it would be useful in the North.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 10 August 2020 20: 13
    11
    First, the tonnage of the ship was "slightly" overestimated. By a little bit, up to 6 metric tons.

    In metric tons, the displacement of the KR type K was 6380 tons, which is 6000 "long" tons.
    6750 "long" tons is a constructive, that is, normal displacement.

    Secondly, the cruising range was sacrificed. 7 miles at a cruising speed of 300 knots - this, in comparison with British light cruisers, which easily gave out twice the range, did not look very weighty.

    The author is very disingenuous ... very much. :)
    For comparison:
    - "Linder" - 5300 miles 15 knots
    - "Aretyuza" - 5500 to 15
    - "Dido" - 5560 at 15
    and "cherry": "Towns" - 7700 by 13.

    Therefore, the cruising range under diesel engines with a full refueling of 18 miles remained a theoretical parameter.

    I wonder where the author got this from, since in German sources the figure 5700 appears at 19 nodes.


    The power plant looked original, but not impressive. Compared to light Italian cruisers, everything looked modest in general.

    The author is not at all embarrassed by the fact that the ships were built for different tasks. :)


    In general, the booking could be called splinterproof, nothing more.

    What then to say about the 1st generation MCT? :)

    This was justified by the fact that the cruiser was entrusted with the functions of a light reconnaissance ship, therefore the battle was supposed to be conducted on a retreat.

    And this scheme also saves weight ... But these are trifles.

    Not the most powerful volley, you must agree.

    If you do not read the German combat instructions, prescribing to keep the target in the range of 20 ... 40 degrees forward or aft from the traverse, then yes ... the volley is weak.

    The auxiliary artillery was even weaker than that of the Emden. There were at least three 105-mm guns and two 88-mm anti-aircraft guns.

    Horses mixed up in a bunch, people ... (s)
    Three 105-mm "Emden" received in the 44th year instead 88 mm.

    And even then the loss of two cruisers out of three is not an indicator of success.

    “Sydney” - lost two out of three. Bad ships too? :)

    but "Eugen" crashed into "Leipzig" all the way, which ... stood, switching the main gearbox from diesels to turbines!

    Yours is not true ... :)
    "Leipzig" at the time of the collision was moving under the turbines with a 9-knot stroke.

    As you can see in the photo, the impact fell on the "Leipzig" exactly in the center of the hull between the bow superstructure and the tube. The bow engine rooms were destroyed,

    The author once again signed for ignorance of the materiel. :)
    "Eugen" pierced the board of "Leipzig" in the area of ​​KO-3.

    or one British (not the most powerful one for sure) torpedo is not fatal damage. Nevertheless…

    340 kg TGA?
    Well, yes, if you compare with "Long Lance" it will not be enough ... :)

    German cruisers lost the most important thing - their survivability, which was the envy of the British in the First World War.

    Where can I find proofs?
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 August 2020 22: 08
      +2
      There are discrepancies regarding the standard displacement of K-class cruisers.
      Patyanin gives the standard displacement for "Konigsberg" and "Cologne" at 6650 tons, and for "Karlruhe" at 6730 tons.
      By the way, the Versailles restrictions were prescribed not in "metric" tons, but in "English", that is, in "long". And the Germans were aware. Kofman wrote about this.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 10 August 2020 23: 36
        +2
        Quote: ignoto
        Patyanin gives the standard displacement for the "Konigsberg" and "Cologne" at 6650 tons.

        German sources have a close figure - 6630 m3, but this is a volumetric displacement.

        Quote: ignoto
        and for "Karlruhe" in 6730 t.

        This is standard after body redesign.
        1. unknown
          unknown 15 August 2020 06: 46
          0
          I immediately remember the classic of Soviet animation: "And in parrots, I'm much longer ..."
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 11 August 2020 12: 25
    0
    Plus, there was a need for two types of fuel: oil for boilers and solar oil for diesel engines

    Did the Germans fail in a low-speed diesel engine running on naval fuel oil?
  • bulava74
    bulava74 11 August 2020 17: 58
    +1
    Those people who criticize the Germans for the construction of K-type ships did not carefully read this article.

    At the time of the design of these cruisers for Germany, there were both strong restrictions for Kaiserliche Marine in the total tonnage of the fleet, and restrictions on the tonnage of one ship of each class.

    From here, the Germans are forced to go out of their way in the construction of ships in order to fit in into imposed restrictions under the Treaty of Versailles.

    zs By the way, exactly the same conditions existed for the Japanese Imperial Navy. Hence the appearance of such strange "light" cruisers like the "Mogami"
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 11 August 2020 18: 38
      0
      Quote: bulava74
      zs By the way, exactly the same conditions existed for the Japanese Imperial Navy. Hence the appearance of such strange "light" cruisers like the "Mogami"

      In fact, the conditions were completely different ...
      Compare the Treaty of Versailles and the 1st London.
  • Fyodor Demidovich
    Fyodor Demidovich 11 August 2020 20: 53
    0
    By the time the Nuremberg was laid down, all the shortcomings of the K-cruisers had become apparent. And the fact that the K-class cruisers could not be used for cruising operations did not raise any doubts at all either in terms of seaworthiness, or armor, or weapons.


    A strange statement, considering that at the time of the laying of Nuremberg, the potential enemy had cruisers and Linders in the same CDE class.