Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. There were three nightmares ...

147

Yes, now we will go to the German shores and see what the heavy cruisers of the Admiral Hipper type were like, good история their appearance is already a good plot in itself.


In general, the construction of cruisers in imperial Germany was very simple: a basic model was created, and then each next type was a modernization with very minor changes. By the way, in Hitler's Germany everything was exactly the same as the example - the same cruisers of the "K" type.

The increase in speed and displacement was insignificant, the armament remained practically the same. However, the uniformity of the ships was a good price, as it made it possible to receive units from the same ships capable of performing combat missions.

After the defeat of Germany in the First World War, the situation did not change, except that the displacement of the cruisers was limited to 6 tons, and the artillery was 000 mm.

But the bell of London and Washington struck, and the restrictions affected all the leading maritime powers ... except Germany! And when all countries began to develop and build a new class of cruisers, heavy, with a maximum standard displacement of 10 tons, armed with artillery of the main caliber of 000 mm and a speed above 203 knots, Germany was not going to stand aside.

And the first step was the creation of the Deutschlands. "Pocket battleships" were so superior (in theory) in battle to "Washington" cruisers that they became a sort of sea bogeyman. The Deutschlands could not do only one thing with the Washingtonians - to catch up with them. But this was not required of the lone raiders.

Inspired by such success as the Deutschlands, which were really very peculiar ships, the leadership of the Kriegsmarine decided that it was time to recreate, if not the High Seas Fleet, then at least its likeness. And this will require not only battleships, but also cruisers. Including heavy ones.

And since German industry at that time was not capable of feats, the ships must be outstanding. That is, outnumber opponents by a head, or better by two.


And, after thinking well, having studied the documents on the French "Algeria" obtained by Admiral Canaris in time, the headquarters of Grand Admiral Raeder decided that the new heavy cruiser should be no worse than the "Algeria" in terms of weapons and armor, but be faster. On the stocks of the French, the Strasbourg and Dunkirk were already under construction, which, in theory, were supposed to become the funeral team for the Deutschlands and not particularly fast heavy cruisers.

And, of course, nobody canceled the idea of ​​a single raiding on ocean communications.


And, although the Germans did not sign the terms of Washington and London, they still had to play according to world rules. That is, armament of eight 203-mm guns, armor, turbines, a speed of 32 knots, a range of 12 miles at a cruising course of 000 knots - all this had to be accommodated in 15-9 thousand tons of displacement.

Could it have been more? Easy. But there were already more - "Deutschlands". In addition, the probable opponents went with obviously higher speed (the Deutschlands have 28 knots on their diesels), but what's the point in a heavy cruiser that is not capable of catching up and destroying the target?

This was a normal heavy cruiser, not a lone pirate fighting against merchant convoys and individual transports. The enemy for a heavy cruiser is primarily a light cruiser, and then a heavy cruiser.

In general, "Deutschland-2" was completely useless. What was needed was an ordinary heavy cruiser. And Raeder's gang started working.

And no one in Germany was embarrassed that 203-mm guns were banned by the Treaty of Versailles. If you really want to, then you can. And eight 203-mm barrels really wanted. And I wanted more, but the Germans have not yet been able to make three-barreled towers for large calibers. And I wanted armor no less than that of the "Algeria", a belt of 120 mm and a deck of 80 mm.

In general, since Germany was not a signatory to the Washington Agreements, anything could be done. But the Versailles restrictions were much more serious than the Washington ones, but since Hitler decided to give a damn about them, what then can we say about the Washington ones?

There remained the question of price and performance characteristics, for there was no point in building an expensive and clumsy hulk. It was as if a heavy cruiser was being built, and not a battleship or a battleship. So the project had to be crammed into the same 10 tons.

And in 1934 the project appeared. Of course, they did not meet the promised 9-10 thousand tons, it turned out about 10 700 tons. The project speed was 32 knots, which is pretty average. Everything worked out with the weapons, but the booking ... The booking turned out to be noticeably weaker than that of the Algeria and even worse than that of the Italian Paul. Only 85 mm armor belt, barbets and traverses, and a 30 mm deck.

Raeder was furious when he saw the calculations and demanded to increase the frontal thickness of the turrets to 120 mm, and the armor belt to 100. The admiral wanted to see the deck 50 mm thick. But to want does not mean to be able. Alas.


However, armor protection is only half the battle. The other half is the power plant.

Diesel engines that were successfully applied at the Deutschlands were clearly not suitable here. Under diesel engines, the pickpockets developed a maximum speed of 28 knots, which was clearly not enough. Plus vibration and noise, which became a nightmare for the crew.

On the light cruisers of the "K" type, the idea of ​​a combined installation was implemented: a turbine for combat use and a diesel engine for an economical course. The idea is interesting, but not without flaws.

On the new ships, the Kriegsmarine leadership decided that only a boiler and turbine unit would be installed. There were many justifying factors for this, the first of which was speed, and the second was the need to save weight wherever possible.

Since the heavy cruisers of the new type were not planned to be used primarily as raiders, the cruising range could be sacrificed. And they donated, the cruising range of the Hippers could not be compared with the range of the Deutschlands. 6 800 miles versus 16 300 - no options.

On March 16, 1935, Hitler finally sentenced all the Versailles Accords. The British very quickly realized that now simply chaos could begin, and quickly concluded a personal Anglo-German agreement, according to which Germany had the right to bring its naval forces to 35% of the British in each category of warships. Accordingly, Germany had the right to build 51 British long tons (T) heavy cruisers.

And immediately after the denunciation of Versailles, the laying of new ships took place. July 1935 - Blom und Voss launches Admiral Hipper. August 1935 - Deutsche Werke begins building the Blucher. April 1936 - Krupp launches Prince Eugen.

Seidlitz and Lutzov were laid down in December and August 1936 by the Deshimag company.

The names of the ships, in fact, are land-based, although the generals Walter von Seydlitz, Adolf von Lutzoff, Gebhard Blucher were constantly present in the names of the ships of the Kaiser fleet... Only "Prince Eugen" stood apart, the ship was named after the Austrian commander Prince Eugene of Savoy. A political step, they wanted to show the Austrians that they are the same as the Germans, a common history and so on.


There were many novelties in the design of ships characteristic of German shipbuilders. For example, the outer skin, which was fastened by welding, except for those zones where armor plates played its role, which were connected in the old fashioned way with rivets.

There was a very interesting device that distinguished the German cruisers. This is a passive roll stabilization system. In the hold, on the sides, there were two tanks, which contained about 200 tons of ordinary water. A special gyro system controlled the overflow of water from one tank to another, due to which the ship was to be leveled during rolling.

Due to this, the side roll of the ship should have decreased, respectively, the accuracy of the shooting should increase. True, there is no information about the actual operation of the system.

It is generally accepted that the crew quarters were not spacious and comfortable. To be honest, they were cramped and rather inconveniently located. And when, during the war, the number of the crew increased due to the same calculations of anti-aircraft installations, everything became very sad in general.

On the other hand, the originally planned medical unit was simply luxurious, with a surgical operating room, dental and X-ray rooms.

Another interesting solution was the bridge wings - long and narrow folding structures that made it possible to improve observation when maneuvering in ports.

In the open sea and in battle, the wings folded.


In combat conditions, the cruiser was supposed to be controlled from an armored conning tower, but the rest of the time the helm post was located in a small and cramped room above the front of the conning tower, the only advantage of which was a roof over the head of the steering and watch officers.

There was no steering wheel. Absolutely. 2 buttons at the helmsman, which correspond to the shift of the steering wheel to the right and left. And in the wheelhouse there was ... a periscope! But the periscope was not looking up, but down! He allowed the officer of the watch to examine the map, which was on the navigator's table one floor below.

Naturally, in the wheelhouse there were gyrocompass repeaters, a magnetic compass and ship communication equipment. In the conning tower everything was the same, even in a wider configuration.

At the very top of the bow superstructure, in the tower-like part, the meteorological cabin was located. The Germans paid attention to weather forecasts, so the meteorological post was not just empty words. And so that the ship's meteorologist did not have to get to the post for a long time, his cabin was placed next to the wheelhouse.

Let's move on to weapons.

Main caliber


Combat ships. Cruisers. There were three nightmares ...

Eight 203 mm guns housed in four twin turrets, two at the bow and two at the stern. The Germans considered this location the most preferable from all points of view: a sufficient minimum number of shells in one salvo (four), minimum dead angles of fire and equal fire on the bow and stern.

Pretty logical. And if you consider that the Germans simply did not have three-gun turrets for 203-mm guns, then the old proven scheme was quite normal.

The towers of the K-class light cruisers were not suitable precisely because 203-mm guns required greater strength, and the towers of the Deutschland-class raiders for 283-mm guns were somewhat heavier than we would like. And the three towers of the cruiser would definitely not have pulled it.

Yes, it didn't look impressive, since 8 barrels against 9 for the French "Algeria" or 10 for the Japanese "Takao" or the American "Pensacola" is not enough. On the other hand, 4 x 2 was a very common scheme among the British and Italians, and never mind, they fought.

German guns were guided horizontally by electric motors, vertically - using electrohydraulic drives. To load the gun, it had to be installed at an elevation angle of 3 °, which reduced the rate of fire at long distances due to the fact that lowering the barrel to the loading position and then raising it to the desired angle took time.

The practical rate of fire was about four rounds per minute instead of the originally intended six. But the British cruisers had the same problem, because the rate of fire did not exceed the same 5 rounds per minute.

The SKC / 34 gun itself was excellent. This was the latest development from Krupp. A 122-kg projectile flew out of the barrel with an initial speed of 925 m / s. Better performance among the guns of that time was possessed only by the Italian, which had an initial speed of 940 m / s with approximately the same projectile weight. However, the accuracy and survivability of the Italian gun left much to be desired.

The Krupp engineers managed to find a middle ground. On the one hand - good trajectory and accuracy, on the other - barrel resource of 300 shots.

The Hipper-class heavy cruisers were excellently equipped with various types of shells. More precisely, there are four types:
- armor-piercing projectile Pz.Spr.Gr. L / 4,4 mhb with bottom fuse and ballistic tip;
- semi-armor-piercing projectile Spr.Gr. L / 4,7 mhb, also with bottom fuse and ballistic tip;
- high-explosive Spr.Gr. L / 4,7 mhb without a special ballistic cap, instead of which a fuse with a small deceleration was installed in the head;
- lighting shell L.Gr. L / 4,7 mhb also with ballistic tip.

An armor-piercing projectile, equipped with 2,3 kg of explosives, could penetrate a 200-mm armor plate at a distance of up to 15 m, and 500-120-mm side armor, which constituted the protection of most cruisers in other countries, could penetrate at almost any real battle distances when fighting on parallel courses.

Normal ammunition consisted of 120 rounds of all types per gun, although the cruisers could receive 140 without any problems, and the entire cellars contained 1308 armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive, as well as 40 lighting, included in the ammunition of only elevated towers.

Anti-aircraft weapons


The cruisers each had 6 two-gun 105-mm C / 31 (LC / 31) mounts, which provided fire from 6 barrels in any sector.


The installations of the station wagons were also very advanced, if not unique for that time. They had stabilization in three planes, not a single cruiser in the world possessed such installations. In addition, if we add to this the possibility of remote control of guns from artillery fire control posts ...

There were also disadvantages. First, the electrification of the towers, which did not treat salt water very well. Secondly, the installations were open, and the calculations were not protected from above from shrapnel and everything else.

37-mm automatic cannons model SKC / 30 were placed in single and twin and also stabilized installations. The presence of gyro stabilization and manual control is a good step forward from Rheinmetall. Yes, the British Quad Vickers and Bofors had a higher fire density. But the German guns were more accurate.


The 20mm anti-aircraft guns were perhaps the only weak link. The allies' Oerlikons were twice as fast as the Rheinmetall, and even the German machine gun required 5 crewmen versus 2-3 for the Oerlikon.


Torpedo armament



In general, on the cruisers of that time, torpedoes were considered as some kind of additional armament, so many devices were not installed. On average 6-8, and they often filmed. We do not take into consideration the Japanese cruisers here, the Japanese torpedoes were generally part of the attack doctrine.


Therefore, 12 torpedo tubes on a heavy cruiser was clearly too much, since it is worth noting that the German 533-mm torpedoes are not at all Long Lance 610-mm for the Japanese. But this was done.

Radar and sonar equipment


Here, the German engineers came off in full. Two sonar systems, passive "NHG" - used for navigation purposes. The second system, also passive, "GHG", was used to detect submarines, although torpedoes fired at the ship were repeatedly detected with its help.

Further. Active system "S", analogue of the British "Asdik". A very efficient system.

Radar stations were also installed, albeit not immediately during construction, but in 1940. The first to receive the FuMo 22 were the Hipper and Blucher, which were ready at that time, the Blucher drowned with it, and during the modernization of 1941, the Hipper was equipped with two FuMG 40G radars.


"Prince Eugen" immediately received two locators of the FuMo 27 type, and in 1942 also FuMo 26 on the roof of the main rangefinder post at the top of the bow superstructure. By the end of the war, the cruiser radar set was generally luxurious: another, FuMo 25 models, on a special platform behind the mainmast, as well as the old FuMo 23 on the stern control tower. In addition, it had a Fu Mo 81 air surveillance radar at the top of the foremast.

In addition, the cruisers were also equipped with detectors for detecting enemy radar radiation. These detectors bore the names of the Indonesian islands. "Prince Eugen" had five Sumatra devices on the foremast, and then received the Timor detection system. Hipper also had Timor. Both cruisers were equipped with FuMB Ant3 Bali passive detectors.


In general, passive detectors for German ships, which usually turned out to be in the role of those who are hunted, that is, game, have turned out to be very useful. But by the end of the war, they could no longer cope, since the enemy had too many radars with different wavelengths.

Aviation equipment



The main means of non-radar reconnaissance on the cruisers was the Arado Ag.196 seaplane. A very decent seaplane, with a long flight range (1000 km) and good armament (two 20 mm cannons and three 7,92 mm machine guns plus two 50 kg bombs).

"Hipper" and "Blucher" carried 3 seaplanes each: two in single hangars and one - on a catapult. "Prince Eugen" could carry up to five aircraft (4 in the hangar and 1 on the catapult), since hangars on it and subsequent ships of the series were double. But a full aircraft package was rarely accepted, usually on ships of this series there were 2-3 seaplanes.

Despite the fashion to abandon torpedo and aircraft weapons for the sake of air defense means, the cruisers retained their Arado until the end of the war.

Combat application


"Admiral Hipper"


The baptism of fire of the "Hipper" took place on April 8, 1940, while the cruiser, along with the ships of the formation, went to capture Trondheim. The British destroyer Gloworm, which had fallen behind her squadron, accidentally ran into the Hipper, which left the British no chance.

In the course of the further battle, the German cruiser fired 31 main-caliber shells and 104 universal-caliber shells. Of these, at least one 203-mm and several 105-mm shells hit the Gloworm, but the destroyer stubbornly continued the battle.


He fired all the torpedoes, although they all passed by. As a result, the destroyer sank along with almost the entire crew, finally crashing into the cruiser. "Hipper" received 500 tons of water, but remained fully afloat.

After minor repairs, the Hipper took part in the second "naval" phase of the Norwegian operation in early June. On the morning of June 9, the British armed trawler Juniper (105 tons), and a little later the military transport Oram (530 brt), sank the British armed trawler Juniper (19 tons) with 840-mm Hipper guns.


With equal rivals, "Hipper" fought on December 25, 1940 near the Azores. This was the escort of convoy WS.5A, one heavy and two light cruisers. The Germans managed not to notice the guard, in which the aircraft carrier "Furies" was still going, and only discovered the British when they opened fire on the transports.

As a result, "Hipper" left, however, having pretty much ripped open the heavy cruiser "Berwick" with shells. Three hours later, the Hipper met and sank the transport Jumna. Not a very big success.

But in the next cruise, the cruiser sank 8 transports with a total capacity of 34 brt in two weeks of raiding.

The next fight "Hipper" took place only in 1942. It was a sad for the Germans "New Year's Battle" of the detachment of Admiral Kummetz (the detachment included the cruisers "Hipper" and "Lutzov" and six destroyers) with the convoy JW-51B on December 31, 1942.


In disgusting weather conditions and with a broken radar, the Hipper first seriously damaged the destroyer Onslow, which was out of action. Further, the Germans sank the minesweeper Bramble, mistaking it for a destroyer. Then the destroyer Ekeites was sent to the bottom.

But then two light cruisers, Sheffield and Jamaica, approached, and the battle turned into a disgrace, because the British finished off the Hipper very well, which took about 1000 tons of water at low speed and left the battle, hiding behind bad weather. "Lyuttsov" actually did not participate in the battle, so two light cruisers in fact drove two German heavy cruisers and sank the destroyer "Dietrich Ekoldt".

After that, "Hipper" was sent to the reserve, where he stood for two years. On January 1, 1945, the cruiser was withdrawn from the reserve, and on January 29 she headed for Kiel, where on February 2 she was put into dry dock. But they did not have time to repair the ship, because the British blew it to shreds during a raid on May 3, 1945.


"Blucher"


Loser ship. He died in the very first combat clash, without really inflicting damage on the enemy, while crossing the Oslofjord on the morning of April 9, 1940.

First, two 280-mm shells from the Norwegian coastal battery "Oskarborg", then two dozen 150-mm shells from the battery "Kopos", fired at close range, and then two more 450-mm torpedoes. On this "Blucher" ended, when the fires detonated the artillery cellar.

"Seydlitz"


They built slowly. They even wanted to sell it to the Soviet Union, since we were not averse to buying. Hitler finally banned the sale in 1939, and work resumed. By May 1942, the cruiser was almost completed, but by this time the large surface ships of Germany were finally out of favor with Hitler, and work was stopped.

Who came up with the fierce idea of ​​turning a 90% complete cruiser into an aircraft carrier is difficult to say, but this idea was approved. The aircraft carrier could seriously facilitate the work of the German raiders against the convoys that were covered by the aircraft carriers.

It was decided to remove the main battery artillery, rebuild the deck and change the design of the hull above the armor belt. The ship was to receive 5 paired 105-mm anti-aircraft guns, four 37-mm twin guns and five 20-mm "firlings". The hangar was supposed to accommodate 18 aircraft.

As a result, the disfigured cruiser stood in Konigsberg until January 29, 1945, when it was blown up. After the war, it was raised and cut into metal.

"Lyuttsov"

Its story never began, as the ship was sold to the Soviet Union in an unfinished state. The history of Petropavlovsk is a separate topic.

"Prince Eugen"


The debut was not very impressive: without starting to fight, the cruiser received the first "hello" from the British on July 2, 1940, namely a 227 kg bomb, which sent the ship for minor repairs.

The first normal battle of the cruiser took place on the morning of May 24, 1941 in the Danish Strait. Eugen's shells hit the Hood and then the Prince of Wales.


On July 2, 1941, exactly one year later, while standing in dry dock in Brest, "Eugen" again got hit by a 227-mm aerial bomb - this time a semi-armor-piercing one. The bomb pierced the deck (80 mm of armor) and exploded in the electric generator room, at the same time destroying the bow artillery computer located above it and damaging the central post. 61 people died, the repair of "Eugen" took another six months.

On February 12, 1942, Eugen, breaking through from Brest to Germany, knocked out the destroyer Worcester.


On February 23, on the way to Trondheim, Eugen received a torpedo from the British submarine Trident. Until the end of 1942, the ship was repaired in Kiel, and then fought in the Baltic, firing at Soviet troops on land. The cruiser fired a large number of shells (about 900), but the most interesting was ahead.

Returning to the base to replenish supplies, "Eugen" in the fog rammed the light cruiser "Leipzig" that had just been out of repair, which was out of order until the end of the war. The Eugen itself was under repair until mid-November. Then the cruiser again fired at the Soviet troops until the ammunition was used up.


The last time "Prince Eugen" had a chance to shoot in late March and early April 1945 from his parking lot in the Danzig area. On April 20, Eugen, having completely used up the main battery, arrived in Copenhagen, where she surrendered on May 9.

Further, the cruiser went to the Americans, who took him to the Kwajalein atoll, where Eugen took part in the testing of three atomic charges.


What can be said in the end?

As a result, the Germans made a serious claim for an excellent ship. But it's safe to say that the masterpiece didn't come out.

The booking was completely unsatisfactory. American, Italian, French ships were all better armored. Even light cruisers with 152 mm guns posed a threat to the Hippers.

The power plant did not provide high qualities, seaworthiness can be considered satisfactory, but nothing more.

Yes, the fire control systems were unmatched. They were just great. The complete duplication of the KDP and computing centers of the main and anti-aircraft caliber and their equipment with high-class optics and equipment gave the Hippers a huge advantage over their classmates.

But the planes, 12 torpedo tubes, spare torpedoes and all other equipment were simply useless cargo that was never really used.

Sources:
Kofman V. L. Heavy cruisers of the "Admiral Hipper" type.
Kofman V.L. Princes of the Kriegsmarine. Heavy cruisers of the Third Reich.
Author:
147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 31 August 2020 18: 21
    18
    Interesting solutions have been applied on this type. And the stabilized anti-aircraft guns were impressive.
    I'd add that the ship is beautiful. This one just asks for a shelf with models.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 31 August 2020 20: 05
      +3
      As a result, the Germans made a serious claim for an excellent ship. But it's safe to say that the masterpiece didn't come out.

      But Daddy Doenitz frolicked
  2. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 18: 24
    10
    Damn well what ......, uh, who chooses such titles for articles huh? Like at Military review there was a claim for serious materials with a veneer of academicism !!!!!
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 31 August 2020 18: 38
      15
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      It seems that the Military Review had a claim to serious materials with a veneer of academicism !!!!!

      It's all in the past. Now serious materials have remained in the archive of the site.
      1. Asad
        Asad 1 September 2020 05: 08
        +9
        Reading the author is easy and this is a big plus! But it is impossible to be an expert in everything. I think Roman needs to write articles together with local experienced comrades. If it is of course interesting to them.
    2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 7 September 2020 22: 17
      0
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      who chooses such titles for articles?

      And I just can't get enough of this name - every time I smile, bumping into it when viewing VO. This is how the neurons need to restart themselves)
  3. swzero
    swzero 31 August 2020 18: 31
    15
    Even light cruisers with 152-mm guns posed a threat to the Hippers.
    Let's just say, based on the gold hit in the New Year's battle, there is no need to talk about the lack of protection against 6 "guns. Let me remind you how it was: due to decent excitement, the lower edge of the armor belt was for a short moment above the water, and it was at this moment that the time hipper received a projectile into the unprotected side of the side, under the armor belt, which led to extensive damage. PS. And even battleships are not protected from numerous hits of medium-caliber shells, the Sauz Dakotas were shattered by them until they completely lost their combat effectiveness - and now we will say that 127mm-203mm shells for Sauzdakota To turn any most protected ship into a useless target it is enough to knock out suo for it. For this, suitcases are not needed. After that, it loses its combat capability. It is enough to look at the last battle of Bismarck. And then the question arises, why spend 30- 40% displacement for armor, if it doesn't save you from HP loss?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 31 August 2020 19: 05
      +3
      And what about Bismarck? It was just "suitcases" trimmed. Rodney hit the bow control room. I don't know in the stern. Maybe Macsen Wledig will clarify if he wants.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 27
        11
        Quote: Engineer
        And what about Bismarck? It was just "suitcases" trimmed. Rodney hit the bow control room. I don't know in the stern. Maybe Macsen Wledig will clarify if he wants.

        It is believed that the central PUAO (on the foremast) demolished the Norfolk somewhere in 0902
        Nosovoy - "Rodney" somewhere at 0910-0915
        Stern - "KD5" at 0920.
        The time is naturally subjectively approximate ...
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 31 August 2020 19: 30
          +3
          Thank you.
          Norfolk got into the carpenter from the very beginning. Well done, no questions asked
          Fart is certainly unreal, but deserved
      2. swzero
        swzero 31 August 2020 22: 49
        0
        you might think the KDP lacked something less than 16 ". After the failure of the main KDP, he did not hit anyone, turning into a target. Something went wrong with the stern, they could not transfer control in time, while they were sorted out, they lost both bow towers (also, by the way, the armor did not save.) And then, apparently, either the Bismarck was already beaten without being substituted under the aft towers, or something did not grow together with their normal control - I read it for a long time, I do not remember the details (see Müllenheim-Rechberg "battleship Bismarck" - memoirs of an artillery officer from Bismarck, just at the stern post Suo was)
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 1 September 2020 06: 57
          +2
          Quote: swzero
          After the failure of the main control tower, he did not hit anyone, turning into a target.

          The Bismarck was on a roughly northwesterly course at about 7 knots with a slight roll to port. The left rudder was still jammed, and the ship somehow kept on a course set by the wind and excitement with only the propellers. At about 6:00 Lindemann tried to increase the speed to 12 knots, but the ship's course became so unpredictable that the vehicles had to be ordered to stop. Probably, Lindemann did not see much of a difference in whether to drift with the propellers stopped or slowly drag in an undesirable direction, so the order to start the turbines did not follow until about 7:00, when they were launched a small forward, since the mechanics spoke about the undesirability of their long shutdown

          "Bismarck" after damaged steering was doomed. In the outset of the shooting, the ship, due to the excitement, absolutely could not keep on course, because its control tower was intact or broken, this did not add any sense.
          The unstable course of the ship greatly reduced the accuracy of predicting its position by the fire control system at the time of the salvo.

          hi
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 September 2020 09: 55
      +3
      Quote: swzero
      And even battleships are not protected from numerous hits of medium-caliber projectiles, the Sauz Dakota were shattered by them to the point of complete loss of combat effectiveness, and what can we say now that 127mm-203mm shells are dangerous for Sauzdakota?

      He-he-he ... until the complete loss of combat effectiveness, "SoDak" was shattered by its own team. Which, with perseverance worthy of a better application, fed the main switchboard No. 4 with a short circuit in the consumer circuits from another main switchboard - after which the fuses in the input circuit flew out on it, disconnecting this main switchboard from the generators (and all its consumers from the power supply), the following was connected to it Main switchboard - and everything was repeated as before... This chain of "rolling blackouts" was interrupted only at the last main switchboard number 1, on which, fortunately, there was a sane Chief Electrician's Mate, Shaeffer. He banned the connection of his main switchboard No. 1 to this chain and turned to the Chief Engineer with a proposal to first eliminate the short circuit in the main switchboard circuits No. 4, and then supply it from other main switchboards. smile
    3. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 1 September 2020 12: 18
      +5
      Quote: swzero
      why spend 30-40% of displacement on armor, if it does not save you from loss of combat effectiveness


      Rhetorical question - rhetorical answer:
      so as not to lose the ship from detonation of ammunition or flooding, not to lose the move to exit the battle - it is cheaper to restore combat effectiveness than to build a new ship to replace the lost one.
      And the crew, protected by armor, is more confident and more aggressive in fighting.
    4. Kwas
      Kwas 2 September 2020 12: 58
      0
      [quote = swzero] [quote] And then the question arises, why spend 30-40% of displacement on armor, if it does not save you from loss of combat effectiveness? [/ quote]
      Compare the time of sinking "Bismarck" or "Lutzov" (in Utl. Battle) with the similar time of "Hood", "Invincible", "Indefategable", "Queen Mary" ...
      And in a battle with greatly superior forces, nothing will save.
    5. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 22: 36
      +1
      Quote: swzero
      To turn any most protected ship into a useless target, it is enough to knock out suo for it.


      Right. An example is South Dakota
  4. Engineer
    Engineer 31 August 2020 18: 44
    +5
    And since the German industry at that time was not able for exploits, then the ships must be outstanding. That is, outnumber opponents by a head, or better by two.

    What is it like ? Could it be better or not?

    In fact, "princes" are a waste of resources at the price of half a "Bismarck". The third "bismarck", acting together with one of the sisterships could well become a nightmare for the CF, although of course he could not win a naval war.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 22
      +3
      Quote: Engineer
      In fact, "princes" are a waste of resources at the price of half a "Bismarck". The third "bismarck", acting together with one of the sisterships could well become a nightmare for the CF, although of course he could not win a naval war.

      It can be seen now ...
      At the time of design, the Germans did not think about confronting the RN ...
      When they thought about it, Plan Z appeared.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 31 August 2020 19: 28
        +3
        So any assessment can only be given in retrospect.
        I'm sure they thought. That is, the TK was made, focusing on the French, but the prospect of war by England was kept in mind. Otherwise, you have to be imbeciles.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 40
          10
          Quote: Engineer
          but the prospect of a war by England was kept in mind. Otherwise, you have to be imbeciles.

          How to say...
          In a well-known book by an Austrian artist, there is very little about England, but a lot about France and, in the long run, "the lands in the East."
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 31 August 2020 19: 45
            -1
            The TK was issued by a non-vegan Braunau.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 54
              +2
              Quote: Engineer
              The TK was issued by a non-vegan Braunau.

              And 12000 miles at 15 knots is actually not that much ...
              The Germans themselves determined the combat radius of their MCTs at 2700 miles + some kind of fuel "for battle".
          2. Liam
            Liam 31 August 2020 20: 24
            +4
            When the artist filled the prison boredom with his opuses, then by the eastern lands he basically meant Poland
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 September 2020 09: 18
              +5
              )))
              It is even less known that
              1. The fact that the Poles and Benes did not take their own was, in general, a consensus. The Austrian green leftist did not write anything unusual.
              2. Approximately the same consensus on the territorial integrity of Germany was, for example, at Adenauer and Schumacher later.
              3. The policy of Poles and Czechs towards ethnic Germans who came to their countries by accident was criminal and insane. So the negotiations in Munich looked a little different from what the British later described them in Nuremberg.
              1. Liam
                Liam 1 September 2020 09: 53
                -5
                What is characteristic is this general phrase about "eastern lands" - practically the only thing that was persistently quoted in the USSR (and even now) from the artist's opuses and is known to everyone without exception. Very well turned up at hand in the light of answers to many inconvenient questions about the pre-war period and the true reasons Barbarossa
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 September 2020 12: 01
                  +2
                  Quote: Liam
                  many uncomfortable questions about the pre-war period and the true reasons for Barbarossa

                  Well, of course, it's very nice that Hitler was a clinical Russophobe and hated Russians, apparently, from childhood. Perfectly explains all his actions and all actions of Comrade. Stalin.

                  Against the background of some well-erudite colleagues who talk about the historical predetermination of the attacks of Finland and Romania on the USSR, this is not even surprising.
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 1 September 2020 12: 45
          +3
          Quote: Engineer
          So any assessment can only be given in retrospect.
          I'm sure they thought. That is, the TK was made, focusing on the French, but the prospect of war by England was kept in mind. Otherwise, you have to be imbeciles.


          We read from Raeder:
          First of all, it was necessary to decide whether the German fleet should be built to solve strictly defined, limited tasks, or it should be such as to be able to resolve any situation that could arise anywhere. The size and character of the fleet of any country is determined primarily by the presence of enemies, which it must confront in case of war. The fleet, the potential enemy of which is a land power, should focus on the construction of ships that can be used in coastal waters - destroyers, minesweepers, small submarines and high-speed torpedo boats. If it faces a war with a country that is inherently a maritime power, then it must build ships capable of operating in the vast seas and oceans, such as aircraft carriers, large ships with a long range and high speed, medium and large submarines; and supply vessels. But rarely can any country predict its future adversary with such precision that would make it possible to plan the entire program of creating a fleet against only this adversary. Generally speaking, all a country can do is build a fleet that can operate in as many situations as possible.

          Our own fleet building program was based on what Hitler told me during my [236] first official meeting with him - that “he never aspired to war with England, Italy and Japan, and therefore the development of the German fleet should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of continental German politics. "

          and then he has the same:
          Proceeding from the naval concepts of that time, which preceded the tremendous development of aviation, we based our plans for building the fleet on the theory that the types of ships that make up the fleet should complement each other and mutually depend on each other. This theory was especially true for Germany, with its few ports and shallow coastal waters. Our submarines could leave their home ports only if minesweepers were clearing mines for them. In [237], the minesweepers were supposed to be protected from attacks by enemy destroyers and cruisers by light, and in some cases, heavy ships. Destroyers and patrol ships were needed to cover heavy ships, to cover ships entering and leaving ports, to lay minefields and to perform countless other general tasks. Therefore, for us, the natural and strategically correct thing was to create a fleet, which would include ships of different classes, forming a single whole.

          Thus, we planned to create the most versatile fleet, by no means specialized against any specific enemy.


          http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/raeder_e/09.html
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 September 2020 18: 18
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            We read from Raeder:
            Our submarines could leave their home ports only if minesweepers were clearing mines for them. In [237], the minesweepers were supposed to be protected from attacks by enemy destroyers and cruisers by light, and in some cases, heavy ships. Destroyers and patrol ships were needed to cover heavy ships, to cover ships entering and leaving ports, to lay minefields and to perform countless other general tasks.

            From a plagiarist, eh ... smile
            Modern destroyers now carry not only mine weapons, but also relatively powerful artillery. Their speed is almost equal to the speed of a mine, so it is useless to act as a mine on a destroyer - it is almost impossible to hit; upon meeting, destroyers engage in artillery combat, in which the enemy's numerical superiority ensures decisive success.
            In the same way, destroyers are powerless against the fast so-called "small" or "light" cruisers, which, however, have now reached a displacement of 6000-8000 tons and are carrying 8-inch guns.
            (...)
            Submarines are also powerless against destroyers and high-speed small cruisers, and it is clear that when the sea is guarded by enemy destroyers, the submarine can only go underwater, which means no more than 35 miles from its base.
            Thus, if we had only destroyers and submarines, they would soon find themselves driven into Kronstadt, and the enemy would be the complete master of the entire sea up to the line, approximately 40-50 miles, say, 100 versts from Kronstadt, and the enemy will not deny himself the pleasure of seeing the effect of a bomb thrown from an airplane, at least on Nevsky Prospect.
            Hence, it is clear that in order to support our destroyers against the enemy, we also need to have "small" fast cruisers with strong artillery weapons.
            Suppose that we would start up submarines, destroyers and "small" cruisers - the enemy would send his mine fleet, his "small" cruisers and fast large armored cruisers to support them, from one type of which the "small" cruiser needs to leave, so as not to be shot and drowned by 12- and 14-inch high-explosive shells from long distances. In addition, he would send out several second-class battleships that would go with lowered nets, without fear of mines, and with their artillery would destroy the strong points of our fleet and our submarines.
            You see, therefore, the need for large cruisers, without which mine defense cannot be ensured.
            Large armored cruisers now differ from the battleship except in their higher speed and their weaker artillery in the number, and not in the caliber of their guns; therefore, it is unprofitable for a large cruiser to engage in artillery combat with battleships, and if the enemy's large cruisers are supported by battleships, then our cruisers will have to yield to them or rely on the same support.
            Thus, you see that only a systematic, calculated struggle of the fleet against the fleet is possible, and the fleet is an organic whole and the absence of any type of ships in it or their relative small number is not redeemed by the exaggerated development of the number of ships of another type - their excessive number will not give predominance over the enemy, but will represent only a waste of funds that, with a more correct ratio, would be used more profitably.
            © A. N. Krylov
            1. Kwas
              Kwas 2 September 2020 13: 09
              0
              But AN Krylov as a whole was clearly wrong. Unconsciously repeating the provisions of the British theory of "sea ownership", he at the same time completely forgot that we absolutely do not need to protect merchant shipping, and therefore build battleships and battleships. We need ships to attack it, for which there are enough good cruisers and destroyers.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 2 September 2020 13: 58
                +1
                Quote: Kwas
                But AN Krylov as a whole was clearly wrong. Unintentionally repeating the provisions of the British theory of "sea ownership", he at the same time completely forgot that we absolutely do not need to protect merchant shipping, and therefore build battleships and battleships.

                Battleships and battleships have nothing to do with the protection of merchant shipping. This is another branch of naval doctrine - "the conquest of dominance by destroying the enemy's fleet." smile
                Quote: Kwas
                We need ships to attack it, for which there are enough good cruisers and destroyers.

                In the same way, destroyers are powerless against the fast so-called "small" or "light" cruisers, which, however, have now reached a displacement of 6000-8000 tons and are carrying 8-inch guns.

                Suppose that we would start up submarines, destroyers and "small" cruisers - the enemy would send his mine fleet, his "small" cruisers and fast large armored cruisers to support them, from one type of which the "small" cruiser must leave, so as not to be shot and drowned by 12- and 14-inch high-explosive shells from long distances.

                That is, even on the "cruising war" branch, we eventually come to LKR. And then there is the provision of their access to communications in the conditions of a distant blockade by the enemy fleet - for which we need LK. It will be otherwise as with the "Goeben", which was intercepted by the "Empress" inferior to him in speed, after which he was forced to leave at full speed to the base.
                1. Kwas
                  Kwas 4 September 2020 07: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Battleships and battleships have nothing to do with the protection of merchant shipping. This is another branch of naval doctrine - "the conquest of dominance by destroying the enemy's fleet."

                  But no. You (and Krylov) forget what this domination is all about. To cut across the sea, shouting "mine!" Probably not. So domination was needed specifically by the colonial powers, for the sake of the safety of sea trade, which is vital for them. We do not care, since our sea communications in the event of war will still be cut, and they are not so important to us.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  That is, even on the "cruising war" branch, we eventually come to LKR.

                  Also no. In our case (and in many others), strategy and logistics work. Suppose we have only one battle cruiser in the Baltic, plus a couple of light ones, but they surpass the enemy in speed, even if they are weaker than their classmates. And immediately they can terrorize the Swedish communications along the coast (ore), since there is nothing to intercept them. Since the ore is vital, Germany immediately has to constantly keep there, for example, a huge fleet of old battleships, organize a system of convoys with their protection, etc. And this despite the fact that the distance from the mouth of the Gulf of Finland to Sweden is significantly less than to Königsberg. If they decided to invade Finland (as Krylov frightened the parliamentarians), it would have been even greater and useless expenses. Take Peter - I think you will agree, a fairy tale, maximum Vyborg, which is a dead end. And to supply this army would have to be under constant threat from Reval and Kronstadt. And every lost steamer is equivalent to a regiment or even a division.
                  Despite the fact that our cruisers could freely sail in solitary hunting (because they can always leave), and even enemy battleships - only in squadrons, because a battle cruiser is stronger than an battleship. Something like that.
    2. Liam
      Liam 31 August 2020 20: 25
      -1
      Quote: Engineer
      What is it like ?

      Most likely the author had in mind the quantitative aspect
    3. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 09: 15
      +1
      In fact, "princes" are a waste of resources


      in fact, the Germans had 35% of the displacement of the Royal Navy, so they wanted to squeeze the maximum out of each unit
      of course, instead of one "Hipper", build two and a half "Kent" - the picture would be somewhat different, but see point one
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 2 September 2020 13: 20
        0
        I agree. Even if you call it a "waste of resources", it is the silly construction of "pocket battleships". Any cruiser could maintain contact with it, taking advantage of the move, waiting for a heavy colleague or a pack of lighter ones. And even in a duel with a good light cruiser, the pickpocket's chances were not very good because of the small ammunition. Not to mention the fact that at the time of their construction, the British had Lyons and Ripals.
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 17: 50
          -1
          stupid construction of "pocket battleships"


          but the trouble is, there are only 6 x 10 tons and a max caliber of 000 mm, so ... we make pickpockets even more expensive :)

          Any cruiser could maintain contact with it.


          at night without a radar - hardly
          + there is another topic: how long can a pickpocket go at 25 knots and how much a cruiser

          Pickpockets are not against naglia - there are no options here, but for the paddling pools they would become a real nightmare (if there were six of them and all of them were sensible)
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 11
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            and max caliber 283 mm,

            In fact, the caliber could be any, up to 380 mm inclusive.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 21: 04
              -1
              I agree, the text of the contract itself does not contain a limitation on caliber,
              it's strange why I saw this in Soviet literature, I'll see
              1. Kwas
                Kwas 4 September 2020 07: 17
                0
                Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                I agree, the text of the contract itself does not contain a limitation on caliber,

                Do you mean Versailles? So yes, 11 inches.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 4 September 2020 09: 33
                  0
                  can you tell me the article number? or is it in addons?
                  1. Kwas
                    Kwas 6 September 2020 20: 34
                    0
                    But I won't tell you! But I read it for sure and repeatedly, although right now I poked my head around, I don't remember where. Probably it was whispered in a threatening whisper in their ear during the negotiations.
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 6 September 2020 20: 37
                      0
                      this is a really interesting question, since I read many times in Soviet literature that the Germans could not have more than 283, but did not see proof and did not find it in the text of the agreement

                      This question will become doubly serious when we discuss why "Charles and Hans" did not receive 3х2 - 380 (like "Baden") but received 3х3 - 283
                      1. Kwas
                        Kwas 6 September 2020 21: 27
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        This question will become doubly serious when we discuss why "Charles and Hans" did not receive 3х2 - 380 (like "Baden") but received 3х3 - 283

                        Yes, there will be something to talk about. Personally, I think the real option was better. It's more effective against cruisers, but it's better not to be caught against a good battleship anyway!
                      2. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 6 September 2020 21: 31
                        0
                        and it's better not to get caught against a good battleship!


                        well as "Bismarck" + "Tirpitz" + "Charles" + "Hans" against 4 "Georg Kings"
                        with 283 it is definitely a cruel drain, and with 380 at least some chances
                      3. Kwas
                        Kwas 7 September 2020 06: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        well as "Bismarck" + "Tirpitz" + "Charles" + "Hans" against 4 "Georg Kings"

                        Well, if they had gathered such a company, the British would not have gone out to sea without the Nelsons. They had a lot of things there, and "Elizabeth", and "Barhams", and "Ripalsa" should not be discarded. 18 versus 4, not counting the states and aircraft carriers, that's convincing. So only raiders, no squadron battles!
                      4. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 06: 41
                        0
                        18 versus 4, not counting the states and aircraft carriers, that's convincing.


                        of which heels in the Mediterranean
                        three pieces of pickpockets
                        and the rest roam in two squadrons of 5
                        at the same time, many Englishmen keep the speed only 18-20 knots :)
  • polpot
    polpot 31 August 2020 18: 55
    0
    Thank you, as always interesting and great sense of humor.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 23
      +6
      Quote: polpot
      and a great sense of humor.

      Rather with a hype ... :)
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 18: 56
    22
    I chose which is bigger ... :)

    And, having thought well, having studied the documents on the French "Algeria" obtained by Admiral Canaris in time, the headquarters of Grand Admiral Raeder decided that the new heavy cruiser should be no worse than the "Algeria" in terms of weapons and armor, but be faster.

    Why such difficulties? Page from Jane 1933


    And, although the Germans did not sign the terms of Washington and London, they still had to play according to world rules.

    They signed the Anglo-German Maritime Agreement in 35, which de facto dragged Germany into the world treaties system.

    And no one in Germany was embarrassed that 203-mm guns were banned by the Treaty of Versailles.

    The author did not read the Versailles Treaty ... :)

    April 1936 - "Krupp" launches "Prince Eugen".

    Germania Werft if anything ...

    A political step, they wanted to show the Austrians that they are the same as the Germans, a common history and so on.

    In fact, they did not want to offend the Italians: initially they planned to call the cruiser "Tegethoff"

    And when, during the war, the number of the crew increased due to the same calculations of anti-aircraft installations, everything became very sad in general.

    I wonder what the Americans said about their cruisers there? :))))))

    but the rest of the time, the helm post was located in a small and cramped room above the front of the conning tower, the only advantage of which was the roof over the head of the helmsmen and watch officers.

    Interestingly, the author of the drawings "hippers" even seen? :)

    There was no steering wheel. Absolutely. 2 buttons at the helmsman, which correspond to the shift of the steering wheel to the right and left.

    There were three buttons: "Left", "Right" and "Arming by DP"

    At the very top of the bow superstructure, in the tower-like part, the meteorological cabin was located.

    The author did not see any drawings ... :)
    The post of meteorologists was located aft from the navigating bridge ...

    Yes, it didn't look impressive as 8 barrels against 9 for the French "Algeria"

    What?

    On the one hand - good trajectory and accuracy, on the other - barrel resource of 300 shots.

    The Germans themselves believed that 600 ... the Americans, that 500.

    37-mm automatic cannons model SKC / 30 housed in single and paired and also stabilized installations.

    Can you tell us more about single installations?

    although torpedoes fired at the ship were repeatedly detected with its help.

    Repeatedly - three times in the Danish Strait? :)
    Moreover, it is not clear what it was ...

    "Prince Eugen" could carry up to five aircraft (4 in the hangar and 1 on the catapult), since hangars on it and subsequent ships of the series were double.

    How lazy to look at the drawings for the author .... especially since the drawings of "Eugen" are on the network
    A piece of the upper deck of "Eugen" Where there is a double hangar, I HZ ... :)


    Iron seems to have finished reading ... :)
    1. RUnnm
      RUnnm 31 August 2020 19: 23
      +2
      Good evening. Not an expert at all in this matter. I about myself, of course. Recently, in Zhukov's video, I heard a statement that, in fact, only German ships and one of the Italians could keep the speed of 30+ knots, and the article describes 32 knots as almost mediocre for classmates. Who is right after all?
    2. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 31 August 2020 20: 05
      0
      Poor resolution. The frame numbers are not readable on the tablet.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 20: 08
        +2
        Quote: Benzorez
        Poor resolution. The frame numbers are not readable on the tablet.

        Step - two meters, between the digital symbols.
        1. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 31 August 2020 20: 37
          0
          In the sense? Is there a spacing of 2000mm?! .. Then maybe you can really put enough airplanes there.
          I have a spacing on the "Comet" of 550mm. recourse
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 20: 49
            +1
            Quote: Benzorez
            In the sense? Is there a spacing of 2000mm?! .. Then maybe you can really put enough airplanes there.
            I have a spacing on the "Comet" of 550mm. recourse

            The Germans used, so to speak, a "theoretical" spacing with a step of one meter, which did not correspond to the "physical" arrangement of the frames on the ship.
            The size of the hangar on "Eugen" is 22,5x5,5x4,8 m, for reference the length of the "Arado" is 11 m.
    3. swzero
      swzero 31 August 2020 23: 11
      +4
      37-mm automatic cannons model SKC / 30 were placed in single and paired and also stabilized installations.
      Were they automatic cannons? As far as I remember, these were semi-automatic machines, the same squalor as our 21-k. Moreover, the passport rate of fire should not be misleading - the settings were stabilized, yes, but the bindings were on the deck and I very much doubt that in real conditions, with any tangible excitement, they could show the passport rate of fire.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 1 September 2020 10: 05
        +4
        Quote: swzero
        Moreover, the passport rate of fire should not be misleading - the settings were stabilized, yes, but the bindings were on the deck and I very much doubt that in real conditions, with any tangible excitement, they could show the passport rate of fire.

        Just for illustration - a photo of the process of loading these "machines":
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 September 2020 09: 41
      +3
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      Can you tell us more about single installations?

      And about automatic 37 mm cannon model SKC / 30. smile
    5. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 1 September 2020 23: 27
      0
      there is simply nothing to comment on in this article

      I will not)
  • Edwards_D
    Edwards_D 31 August 2020 19: 03
    18
    The author, write better in "Crocodile", and then already which article I read and rzhu. The author clearly did not see the drawings of any of the ships he writes about, and sometimes he draws very strange conclusions. We are clearly not on friendly terms with technology.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 20
    12
    As a result, "Hipper" left, however, having pretty much ripped open the heavy cruiser "Berwick" with shells.

    The British for some reason decided that
    Fighting Efficiency - Not seriously impaired,


    In disgusting weather conditions and with a broken Hipper radar

    Didn't the author confuse Hipper with Scharnhorst for an hour? :)

    The British finished off the Hipper quite well, which took about 1000 tons of water at low speed and left the battle, hiding behind the bad weather.

    The author is very subjective ... :)

    destroyer "Dietrich Ekoldt".

    Hmmm ...

    But they did not have time to repair the ship, because the British blew it to shreds during a raid on May 3, 1945

    Brave claim...

    On February 12, 1942, Eugen, breaking through from Brest to Germany, knocked out the destroyer Worcester.

    While staying in Brest, "Eugen" rearmed? :) Since the British write that Worcester received
    Six direct hit, one "short" 5.9 inch direct action fuzed Shells


    12 torpedo tubes, spare torpedoes and all other equipment were just useless cargo that was never really used.

    The author should read foreign works on "hippers" ... :)
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 1 September 2020 23: 54
      -1
      destroyer "Dietrich Ekoldt".
      Hmmm ...


      that is, the fact that Seydlitz - Walter, You were not confused even once)
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 13
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        that is, the fact that Seydlitz is Walter did not bother you even once)

        If you select ALL jambs in this "article", you will get twice as large. :)
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 2 September 2020 20: 42
          -1
          but this one is epic)
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 31 August 2020 19: 36
    +3
    the main disadvantage of German ships is very capricious energy on high-pressure steam, which made it necessary to stand idle for a long time in repair
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 37
    +9
    Quote: RUnnm
    Good evening. Not an expert at all in this matter. I about myself, of course. Recently, in Zhukov's video, I heard a statement that, in fact, only German ships and one of the Italians could keep the speed of 30+ knots, and the article describes 32 knots as almost mediocre for classmates. Who is right after all?

    Well ... Klim Sanych is still a "sailor" - about the Middle Ages he does better.
    The speeds indicated in the sources are often the values ​​laid down in the project, at best - achieved during tests with one degree or another of "cheating".
    The actual speed in the ocean is highly dependent on many factors.
    As for the specific speed: it is documented that during the entire operation "Reynyubung" "Eugen" only developed a course of more than 30 knots three times, in the evening of May 23, in the morning of 24 (both times it dodged the Bismarck and in the evening On the 24th when he left the British.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 20: 08
      +3
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      about the Middle Ages he does better.


      1000
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 31 August 2020 23: 23
        +4
        It turns out in the Middle Ages as well. Only there are fewer specialists, so the public believes him. The conversational genre of Goblin and Zhukov has long been a historical "Petrosianism" for an undemanding listener
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 23: 40
          +1
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          It turns out in the Middle Ages as well.


          Well, I can't judge here, although some moments were cut
  • RUnnm
    RUnnm 31 August 2020 19: 40
    +3
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    and on the evening of the 24th, when he left the British

    Well, in such a situation and on a raft, you will probably squeeze the maximum)))
    By the way, is Morozov, in your opinion, a greater specialist, or is he +/- too? And then I just listen to his description of the actions of Marinesco during the attack.
    Thanks for the reply.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 19: 47
      +7
      Quote: RUnnm
      Well, in such a situation and on a raft, you will probably squeeze the maximum)))

      In fact, there was a trap, but for some reason the British did not fall for it ...

      Quote: RUnnm
      By the way, is Morozov, in your opinion, a greater specialist, or is he +/- too?

      Compared to Klim Zhukov?
      If we compare it in the context of naval history, it's like comparing a professor and a kindergarten teacher.
      Although, if you unfold the situation (I'm talking about the history of the Middle Ages), the picture will be the opposite. :)
      So everything in the world is relative.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 20: 07
      0
      Quote: RUnnm
      in your opinion, a greater specialist,


      It is still not naval, I often paid attention to minor inaccuracies. But on the whole, he is undoubtedly the best as an author of books on IUI, and by the way, as a lecturer, too, is great. Only for 8 years now he does not want to study the history of the USSR naval aviation during the Second World War.
      By the way, to this day I have not seen the list of victories of Soviet aviation in the war at sea, except, of course, torpedo bombers, a book on which Morozov also wrote ...
  • dgonni
    dgonni 31 August 2020 19: 50
    20
    Skomorokhov, although he read Kofman, did not understand anything, unfortunately!
    First! The Germans could build three-barrel turrets for any caliber! But the Kringsmarine naval gunners considered the symmetrically positioned twin turrets to be more effective and appropriate for their mission! Although they add up to be heavier than 3 × 3-203!
    The heavy cruisers of the Germans became the forerunners of the universal warships of the 50-60s. Their main emphasis was on the LMS and their duplication. By the way, the LMS was more advanced than on Tirpitz and Bismarck. Yes, it was created on mechanics and optics with the addition of radars. But all the subsequent experience of world development suggests that the droichs have clearly defined the strategy for the further development of this class of ships.
    Neighing for the cramped and inconvenient crew accommodation. Well, not well, if you compare with amers and the British, it is possible that it is so. Compared with the Japanese and Soviet ships, it is definitely a resort.
    Well, for the Germans, it was for the princes that the dense placement of the crew was not critical. Since they were based on a port with floating barracks and were designed for battles in the North Sea. By the way, this is another reason why such a configuration of the armament corps and the used FCS was used!
    In general, this article was not successful for Skomorokhov, unfortunately. Although his planes are far from ice!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 20: 00
      +7
      Quote: dgonni
      By the way, the LMS was more advanced than on Tirpitz and Bismarck.

      On "Hipper" and "Blucher" there was SUAO type 35K (K-cruising, with cut range), the same as on "twins".
      On "Eugen" - type 38K SUAO, the same as on "Bismarcs", except for the cut off range.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 31 August 2020 20: 05
        +4
        By the way, the Germans at the beginning of the war had radars even better than the British. And in the episode with Berwick and the Laufontaine Islands, they found the British earlier. Berwick didn't get it at all until he started getting hit.
        The habitability is generally terra incognita. Usually they write about one and a half square meters per person on the Mayan TKR, although on the Beatty battle cruisers in WWI this figure was 1.6 meters.
        "Kings" did not have air conditioning at all, and on Bismarck, which, in principle, was not intended for the tropics, such installations were at least three rooms.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 20: 13
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          off the Lofontaine Islands

          Are you talking about the fight between "Rhinaun" and the "twins"?
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 31 August 2020 20: 14
            +1
            Are you talking about the fight between "Rhinaun" and the "twins"?

            Yes
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 20: 44
              +3
              Quote: Engineer
              Are you talking about the fight between "Rhinaun" and the "twins"?

              Yes

              The joke of humor is that the radars on the Renaune were installed only during repairs in the summer - autumn of 41.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 31 August 2020 20: 58
                0
                http://militera.lib.ru/h/patyanin_sv/index.html
                At 04:30 the radar "Gneisenau" detected a target 25 km aft, and a combat alert was played on the German ships. Not trusting the radar, the commander of the ship, Captain 1st Rank Harald Nezbandt, ordered an artillery officer to confirm the contact with a rangefinder. Seven minutes later, marks appeared on the British radar screen. Due to the incessant rain, the opponents visually discovered each other only half an hour later, and the Rhinaun signalmen identified the Germans as a Scharnhorst-class battleship and an Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruiser.

                I don’t know if it’s Rinaun or the escort destroyer. But according to Patyanin, the Germans established RL contact earlier.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 21: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I don’t know if it’s Rinaun or the escort destroyer.

                  The question is of course interesting ...

                  Quote: Engineer
                  But according to Patyanin, the Germans established RL contact earlier.

                  S.P. somehow badly mistaken.
                  From ZhBD "Gneisenau"
                  0449.
                  Dete-Meldung: Objekt in 295, 202 hm, etwas sprater 280, 185 hm.

                  At 0457, the "large ship" was detected visually at a bearing of 260.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Dmitry V.
                  Dmitry V. 1 September 2020 13: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I don’t know if it’s Rinaun or the escort destroyer. But according to Patyanin, the Germans established RL contact earlier.


                  Do not forget that the height of the transmitting and receiving antennas is also important.
                  The higher the placement, the wider the radio horizon.
                  Radio horizon calculator, if you're interested.
                  https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/ru-RU/calculator/radar-horizon/

                4. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 1 September 2020 18: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I don’t know if it’s Rinaun or the escort destroyer. But according to Patyanin, the Germans established RL contact earlier.

                  Not "Rhinaun" for sure.
                  According to Commanding Officer, HMS RENOWN's letter No. 2022/061 и Vice Admiral Whitworth's (BCS) Report on the RENOWN Engagement "Charles" was discovered visually at 03:37 (its silhouette clearly appeared on the horizon "against the light" in the gap between the squalls), and the second ship was discovered "presumably". Then contact broke off and resumed only at 03:56, when both ships emerged from another squall at a distance of 9 miles. Moreover, these ships were identified as: either "Scharnhorst", or "Hippers". After the battle, based on the discovered fragments of a 28-cm projectile, one of the ships was recorded as "Scharnhorst", and the second remained "Hipper". At least April 29, 1940, Vice Admiral Whitworth's (BCS) considered the second ship a "Hipper".

                  There was generally a fun fight. According to "Technical Remarks on the Gun Armament Engagement of 9th April", none of the Rhinaun rangefinders could measure the distance to the target - the tower rangefinders were constantly under water, and the main rangefinder's viewing windows were covered with water dust faster than the team cleaned them and drained.
                  4. Rangefinder. All rangefinders including the DCT were washed out by sea and spray before opening fire. No rangefinder ranges were obtained during the course of the firing. “A”, “B”, and “Y” rangefinders were continually submerged, and DCT was covered with spray as fast as the rangefinder windows could be cleaned and dried by men stationed to this.

                  And after the battle, it took 2-3 days to dry the tower rangefinders - since the ship had only one device for this. As a result of this battle, their number was doubled.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 September 2020 10: 23
      +5
      Quote: dgonni
      two-gun turrets placed symmetrically, more efficient and corresponding to the assigned tasks! Although they add up to be heavier than 3 × 3-203!

      Yes. 4x2 towers were considered the optimal solution, the 3x3 scheme was chosen due to VI limitations (not only the weight of the towers, but also the length of the citadel). However, the Germans, according to the principle "the barn burned down, burned down and the hut", left the 10K and no longer doubted.
      Quote: dgonni
      The heavy cruisers of the Germans became the forerunners of the universal warships of the 50-60s. Their main emphasis was on the LMS and their duplication.

      Yes. They didn't have radars yet. Postwar American destroyers Mitcher and Forest Sherman, with extremely poor artillery (even the idea of ​​leaving only 3 "was discussed), the LMS was superior to any LK of the very recent WWII.

      The low rating of the Germans is mainly due to several unsuccessful episodes of their use. + these are fascists, you know. And so these are the strongest ships of their time (before the appearance of the Balts), which is not surprising - from 10K they got out godlessly.
      Quote: dgonni
      Neighing for the cramped and inconvenient crew accommodation. Well, not well, if you compare with amers and the British, it is possible that it is so.

      Americans are different. The Balts are not bad, but the Cleves, due to the insanity of the Americans with the MZA, could not boast of habitability. The Japanese, for their part, are better in this respect than is commonly believed.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 31 August 2020 19: 58
    0
    However, fierce machines were installed. Disperse such bandura by thirty-two knots. This is impressive!
  • RUnnm
    RUnnm 31 August 2020 20: 26
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    .Only for 8 years now he does not want to deal with the history of the naval aviation of the USSR during the Second World War.

    It's probably still closer to Timin. I think he even promised to think about it.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 31 August 2020 21: 01
    13
    And eight 203-mm barrels really wanted. And I wanted more, but the Germans have not yet been able to make three-barreled towers for large calibers.

    It turns out that the Germans were up to the task of making three-gun turrets for 280 mm guns for "pocket battleships", but they did not master the three-gun turrets for 203 mm guns?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 21: 11
      +5
      Quote: Comrade
      And they did not master the three-gun turrets for 203 mm guns?

      Overpowered. The draft design was ready by August 1937 ...
      However, it remained unclaimed.
  • ermak124.0
    ermak124.0 31 August 2020 21: 47
    0
    Very interesting, thanks.
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 31 August 2020 21: 52
    +9
    I wish the author, before writing, read at least those books to which he, the author, referred. Maybe then he would not write nonsense, for example, about weak booking. The Hippers had a beveled deck at the waist so that the armor was perfectly level. And the booking area was impressive.
    At the sharp corners, characteristic of the chase and retreat, the very thing.
    And he got a couple of 6 "shells while heeling, below the belt.
    Our dear "Bayan" did not write a word about the only serious drawback of the project, the CMU on a couple of high parameters.
    In general, I heard a ringing, but ...
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 22: 03
      +3
      Quote: Grossvater
      And he got a couple of 6 "shells while heeling, below the belt.

      In KO - one.
      The other two flew into the hangar and into the hull just above the battery deck.
    2. Constanty
      Constanty 1 September 2020 09: 15
      0
      about weak booking for example. The Hippers had a beveled deck at the waist so that the armor was perfectly level. And the booking area was impressive.


      Comparison of armor with ships of the "Admiral Hipper" class
      In the event of a collision between the Algerie and the Admiral Hipper cruisers, the armored deck of one of these German ships could be penetrated from a distance of more than 14 meters, and its side armor - from a distance of less than 200 meters. It follows that the principle of the “immune zone”, used by the Americans, Germany was not known at all!
      On the other hand, the armored deck of the French cruiser could not be penetrated from a distance of less than 27 meters (the shells fell at too small an angle), which would be about 400 meters less than the maximum range of the German 6000mm SKC / 203 cannons.
      Side armor at a range of more than 17700 meters made the French ship fully protected from German 203 mm shells. So, if the "Algerie" could withstand distances from 18000 to 26000 meters (or even a little more), it will be really protected from the fire of the "Admiral Hipper", and he himself will be able to penetrate the German deck armor and barbette armor. Only the barbets of a French ship would be too weak to fire at such distances.
      A German cruiser fighting such an enemy will face a difficult task, and if he does not try to reduce it. The distance (which will also be very dangerous for him) will have little chance of seriously damaging the Algerie
      for: Andrzej Jaskuła "Algerie" - jeden z najlepszych "krążowników waszyngtońskich" MsiO 1996/01 str. 38
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 1 September 2020 18: 37
        +3
        Quote: Constanty
        for: Andrzej Jaskuła "Algerie" - jeden z najlepszych "krążowników waszyngtońskich" MsiO 1996/01 str. 38

        Do not read Polish newspapers before dinner ... (c)
        The author of the article stupidly took the numbers from Appendix E to "Unterlagen und Richtlinien ...", but probably hesitated to explain what was written.

        Quote: Constanty
        From this it follows that the principle of the "immune zone" used by the Americans was not known to Germany at all!

        Maybe he was known, but in tactical formations, judging by the same "Unterlagen und Richtlinien ...", the Germans were not used.

        Quote: Constanty
        In the event of a collision between the Algerie and the Admiral Hipper cruisers, the armored deck of one of these German ships could be penetrated from a distance of more than 14 meters, and its side armor from a distance of less than 200 meters.

        It should be noted here that the Germans assumed that the Frenchman was firing 116 kg shells with an initial velocity of 870 m / s.

        Quote: Constanty
        Side armor at a range of more than 17700 meters made the French ship fully protected from German 203 mm shells. So, if the "Algerie" could withstand distances from 18000 to 26000 meters (or even a little more), it will be really protected from the fire of the "Admiral Hipper", and he himself will be able to penetrate the German deck armor and barbette armor.

        And here the author either deliberately lies, or speaks lies out of ignorance.
        The fact is that these numbers are again taken from "Unterlagen und Richtlinien ...", but there is one MAAAAAAALENKY "but" ... In their calculations, the Germans assumed that the vertical armor of the "Algerie" consists of a 110-mm armor belt KS, reinforced with a 70-mm bevel of armor equivalent to Wh, set at an angle of 30 degrees.
        That is, the enemy's armor was taken much stronger than it actually was ...

        Quote: Constanty
        A German cruiser fighting such an enemy will face a difficult task, and if he does not try to reduce it. The distance (which will also be very dangerous for him) will have little chance of seriously damaging the Algerie

        Based on the German penetration charts for the vertical armor of the Algerie, it will normally penetrate up to a distance of about 22000 m, that is, at all normal combat distances.
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 1 September 2020 19: 04
          0
          This actually changes the situation, and it is not surprising that no mention is made of this in new articles and monographs about German heavy cruisers.

          Now I think I read more Russian than Polish literature, but I remember this comparison.
  • BAI
    BAI 31 August 2020 22: 09
    +3
    Due to this, the side roll of the ship should have decreased, respectively, the accuracy of the shooting should increase. True, there is no information about the actual operation of the system.

    This system worked. And even described in children's books about the history, development and structure of ships.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 31 August 2020 22: 21
      +3
      Quote: BAI
      This system worked.

      But the efficiency was so-so.
      The Germans initially began to use it as a storage of prepared boiler water, and then, having dismantled excess equipment, they converted it into a fuel tank.
  • Avior
    Avior 1 September 2020 00: 43
    +6
    ... The British destroyer Gloworm, falling behind her squadron, accidentally ran into the Hipper, which left the British no chance.

    Actually, the British stumbled upon two German destroyers and immediately opened fire on them, as a result of which the destroyers requested assistance.
    Perhaps the destroyer would have had a chance to leave, or maybe strike at Hipper, hiding behind a smoke screen, but it did not help because of Hipper's radar, the cruiser commander kept his nose at the destroyer because of the danger of a torpedo attack.
    After the ram, most of the destroyer's crew died, and Hipper's commander later committed an unusual act - he wrote a letter about the bravery of the British and the courage of the deceased destroyer commander, and handed it over to England through the Red Cross.
    The destroyer commander was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, the first to be awarded the Cross in World War II
  • pin_code
    pin_code 1 September 2020 07: 56
    +3
    Roman ... the Deutschlands have 3 turrets and 11 "guns. On the same Hipper with 8" artillery, it was quite possible, quite close to 100%. maybe the Kriegsmarine had other reasons to make the 2-gun turrets? I have not yet read the article to the end. have a question, I'm asking.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 September 2020 08: 28
    +2
    The author stubbornly sticks to his idea that Canaris steal "ALGERIE" plans and designs of German cruisers based on it, or even copy it.
    It's buulshit.

    Yes, "Algeria" as the newest ship of a potential enemy was iconic, but nothing more - apart from the fact that the Germans originally planned a ship different from the "Washington standard", armed with 190-mm guns, it was different from the French ship, with the exception of the 4x2x203 weapon system mm, practically. everything - from 40% more displacement, to the arrangement of the engine room and the number of propeller shafts, to the structure of the hull itself - is completely different - see the drawing



    And when all countries began to develop and build a new class of cruisers, heavy, with a maximum standard displacement of 10 tons, armed with 000-mm main artillery and a speed above 203 knots, Germany was not going to stand aside.
    And the first step was the creation of the Deutschlands.


    And here the author presented this issue in a very contradictory way. Yes, the Germans were not bound by the restrictions of the Washington and London Treaties, they were bound by the Versailles Treaty.

    Moreover, the armored ships "Panzerschiff" were built not as an absolute counterweight to the cruisers "Washington", but as part of the replacement of outdated battleships in accordance with the letter of the Treaty of Versailles - with a displacement of 10 and 000-centimeter guns.

    The fact that during the war they were transferred to the category of heavy cruisers has nothing to do with this. Deutschlands did not mention cruisers at all during construction.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 September 2020 09: 15
    0
    Comparison of armor with ships of the "Admiral Hipper" class
    In the event of a collision between the Algerie and the Admiral Hipper cruisers, the armored deck of one of these German ships could be penetrated from a distance of more than 14 meters, and its side armor - from a distance of less than 200 meters. It follows that the principle of the “immune zone”, used by the Americans, Germany was not known at all!
    On the other hand, the armored deck of the French cruiser could not be penetrated from a distance of less than 27 meters (the shells fell at too small an angle), which would be about 400 meters less than the maximum range of the German 6000mm SKC / 203 cannons.
    Side armor at a range of more than 17700 meters made the French ship fully protected from German 203 mm shells. So, if the "Algerie" could withstand distances from 18000 to 26000 meters (or even a little more), it will be really protected from the fire of the "Admiral Hipper", and he himself will be able to penetrate the German deck armor and barbette armor. Only the barbets of a French ship would be too weak to fire at such distances.
    A German cruiser fighting such an enemy will face a difficult task, and if he does not try to reduce it. The distance (which will also be very dangerous for him) will have little chance of seriously damaging the Algerie
    for: Andrzej Jaskuła "Algerie" - jeden z najlepszych "krążowników waszyngtońskich" MsiO 1996/01 str. 38
  • Edwards_D
    Edwards_D 1 September 2020 09: 19
    +3
    Quote: RUnnm
    By the way, is Morozov, in your opinion, a greater specialist, or is he +/- too? And then I just listen to his description of the actions of Marinesco during the attack.

    Morozov's theme is submarines and naval aviation. When he starts to climb into surface ships and listen to shipbuilding programs funny, this is not his topic at all.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 September 2020 10: 52
    +2
    But they did not have time to repair the ship, because the British blew it to shreds during a raid on May 3, 1945.

    If you believe the Germans, then the British damaged only the ship's superstructure during the bombing on April 9, 1945. On May 3, 1945, the Germans themselves blew up the cruiser in the dock. Then in 1948 the British butchered the cruiser.
    In other words, the cruiser was hit irretrievably lost thanks to the surrender of Germany, or it can be credited to the Red Army, like Seydlitz and Eugen.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 1 September 2020 11: 04
    +3
    Thanks a lot for the article, Roman!
    So we got to the interesting ships from the engineering point of view, and indeed to the shipbuilding policy of Kriegsmarine.
    The Reichsmarine left the Third Reich a legacy of a collection of freaks, including three "armadillos" (perhaps the most accurate classification of these porcupines).
    And now - happiness has come, and you can build ships "like all civilized countries."
    The first and main blunder of the development programs of the German Navy in 1935-1939 was a lack of understanding of the role of the fleet in the coming war. Hence this stupid ape in the desire to have a kind of "balanced" fleet. The British are not fools, when they imposed restrictions on the Navy on the world, they quite accurately determined the tonnages under which all potential opponents were forced to create ships of various types that were completely unnecessary for their theater of operations, and could not develop a direction that was really dangerous for RN.
    The Germans swallowed the British bait in full and from the middle of 1935 rushed to build battleships, heavy cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines (the latter - in a clear proportion determined by the British), not realizing that a fleet copying the strongest in a proportion of 35% is not capable no matter what, except for heroic death in a general battle, or dull defending in bases with occasional ineffective sorties.
    In fact, the key to Germany's victory over Great Britain lay in the conduct of an unrestricted naval and air blockade, which was to be provided by strategic bombers, torpedo bombers and submarines. The surface forces were needed only to ensure the landing of ground forces on the territory of a blocked enemy with a destroyed infrastructure in conditions of complete air supremacy.
    But, the absence of the prophet in Vaterland led to the fact that large surface ships began to be built, including heavy cruisers. In fact, the Germans built three highly improved "Washington" cruisers, a kind of forerunner of the "Baltimors". Both those and others are engineering perfect, outwardly beautiful, but expensive and not very useful.
    If we talk about the possibility of changing the project "Adm. Heeper" in the direction of changing its fighting qualities, then we can point out the following possibilities:
    1. Build ships initially without boules, for the possibility of increasing their displacement by 3-4 thousand tons after their installation.
    2. Use a combination of two- and four-gun turrets like King George V.
    3. Increase the caliber of the guns by replacing the liner according to the principle of "H" -type battleships, for which purpose they were originally designed for a caliber of 220-230 mm.
    4. Design a combined power plant: side shafts - GTZA of high parameters of 55-60 thousand hp, the middle shaft - diesel with a total capacity of 27-30 thousand hp. with CPP.
    5. To keep torpedo tubes in the amount of two, to strengthen air defense at the expense of MZA.
    6. Reinforce the armor by reinforcing the bevels and thickening the main armor deck with possible lightening of the belt armor to withstand high-explosive 6 "shells.
    Thus, you can get a ship superior to the original design, but even more expensive and hardly more useful.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 September 2020 17: 51
      0
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      In fact, the key to Germany's victory over Great Britain lay in the conduct of an unrestricted naval and air blockade, which was to be provided by strategic bombers, torpedo bombers and submarines.

      If the Germans did not begin to build "big pots", exchanging them for submarines, then this would lead to the adjustment of the pre-war shipbuilding programs in Britain - in favor of the "Hunt" and "Flowers". And the German submarines would have met in 1939 with PLO forces, quantitatively equal to 1942.
      Plus, all ships larger than the KRL would be removed from the Home Fleet - in favor of Mediterranean and the Far East.

      The development of torpedo aircraft by the Germans will inevitably lead to a conflict between the Kriegsmarine and the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, since the primary goal of a future big war is the rapid defeat of France on land, for which the army and air force will require all resources. Simply because without this defeat, all actions aimed at the future struggle at sea with Britain are meaningless. And it is impossible to predict in advance that France will fall in a month in 1936 (and that is when it is necessary to start building a new fleet).
      Plus, the emphasis of the Germans on naval aviation could lead to the earlier appearance of escort ABs among the British - but not anti-submarine, but fighter ones (however, in the Republic of Ingushetia, their first escort aircraft-carrying ships were fighter ships). As a result, the range of action of the German torpedo bombers would be limited by the combat radius of "one hundred and ninth".
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 September 2020 11: 18
    0
    Diesel engines that were successfully applied at the Deutschlands were clearly not suitable here. Under diesel engines, the pickpockets developed a maximum speed of 28 knots, which was clearly not enough. Plus vibration and noise, which became a nightmare for the crew.


    The Admiral Hipper class cruisers, although they had a larger displacement than the "pocket battleships", also had significantly different hull proportions and aspect ratio, which should have led to a decrease in hydrodynamic drag.
    It should not be forgotten that the Admiral Hipper cruisers had a three-shaft engine, which made it possible to use more powerful engines than in the Deutschland. Several years have passed, which is also important.

    In my opinion, the abandonment of diesel engines was a mistake caused, rather, by euphoria and hopes for high-pressure boilers, which later became the curse of Hipper and Blucher - which is interesting, despite the same boilers as the main ship, during its operation. there weren't such huge problems.
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 1 September 2020 12: 19
      +4
      Not certainly in that way.
      Diesel engines of that time had a low resource when operating at rated power and did not endure forcing at all for more than an hour. Therefore, the parade 28 knots were achieved only during tests.
      At the same time, the boiler-turbine plant of that time allows forcing by 25% within two hours and by 15% within six hours. In addition, it is more compact and allows for layered and staggered placement to increase survivability.
      In a combined installation, it is possible to move economically on one diesel engine, and cruising - on two. In addition, there is the possibility of combining a diesel engine and two turbines for cruising in a combat situation. At full stroke, the entire boiler and turbine unit and one or two diesel engines can be used, but this requires a CPP on the middle shaft. The disadvantage of such an installation is the use of more expensive diesel fuel for KTU.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 1 September 2020 12: 22
        0
        How often did the Admiral Hipper cruisers actually run at top speed? (I even ignore the fact that after an hour of such a march, their boilers still won't obey).
        The diesel propulsion system for these ships was seriously considered during the design stage because while it is true what you write, it also has its undeniable advantages, including a huge range.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 September 2020 18: 46
          +1
          Quote: Constanty
          How often did the Admiral Hipper cruisers actually run at top speed? (I even ignore the fact that after an hour of such a march, their boilers still won't obey).

          Let's just say, on the evening of May 24, the Eugen took off from the British for two hours with a 31-knot speed, and then a day and a half went south with a 29-knot speed ...
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 September 2020 11: 28
    +2
    The Germans swallowed the British bait in full and from the middle of 1935 rushed to build battleships, heavy cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines (the latter - in a clear proportion determined by the British)

    German shipbuilding private capital strove for maximum nailed and his brainchild, the Nazi government, rushed to build battleships for 180-200 million marks and a heavy cruiser for 90-100 million marks. It is they who swallowed the bait of military spending and began the war for world domination.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 September 2020 11: 28
    +3
    Pretty logical. And if you consider that the Germans simply did not have three-gun turrets for 203-mm guns, then the old proven scheme was quite normal.


    And what double-barreled 203-mm gun turrets were already developed by the Germans?
    Did not have !!!
    When developing the design of heavy cruisers, the Germans had to design towers from scratch - no matter - 2x or 3x artillery towers - they chose the 4x2 layout, but not because of the lack of three-gun towers.
    Another mistake - 3 turrets with 3 guns not only give you one gun "as a bonus", but also allow you to shrink the citadel.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 September 2020 18: 50
      +3
      Quote: Constanty
      And what double-barreled 203-mm gun turrets were already developed by the Germans?
      Did not have !!!

      There was a project of a two-gun turret for 21-cm guns, developed in the 23-24-ies for the cruiser of the project I / 10

      Quote: Constanty
      When developing the design of heavy cruisers, the Germans had to design towers from scratch - it doesn't matter - 2x or 3x artillery towers

      And what, in the First World War, turret artillery was absent on German ships as a class? :)
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 1 September 2020 12: 09
    +5
    Raeder's gang got started .... the fight turned out to be a disgrace because the British did a pretty good job of the Hipper


    Style of presentation - from adolescent-casual, to cattle-boorish ... fashion?
    Appropriate for Yandex Zen, not for topvar.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 1 September 2020 23: 35
      0
      generals Walter von Seydlitz
      !!!!!!!!!!

      zen banned :)

      especially for Roman:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зейдлиц-Курцбах,_Вальтер_фон
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зейдлиц-Курцбах,_Фридрих_Вильгельм_фон
    2. Comrade
      Comrade 2 September 2020 04: 44
      0
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      Appropriate for Yandex Zen, not for topvar.
      What's the difference between them now?
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 September 2020 12: 09
    +2
    Yes, it didn't look impressive, since 8 barrels against 9 French Algeria

    request

    Information for the author about the elementary - "Algerie" had a 4x2 weapon system.
    The 3x3 layout was supposed to have the planned C5 or St. Louis cruisers.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 1 September 2020 12: 23
    +2
    Given the fact that Germany was under the control of the Treaty of Versailles until the late 20s, the breakthrough in military shipbuilding in the decade of the 30s was impressive. The design and construction of complex combat NKs was quite successful. And these cruisers actually fought in the seas, and did not defend themselves in ports, like the NK (battleship and cruisers) of the Black Sea Fleet since 43.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 September 2020 16: 29
    -3
    Quote: xomaNN
    And these cruisers actually fought in the seas, and did not defend themselves in ports, like the NK (battleship and cruisers) of the Black Sea Fleet since 43.

    In reality, German cruisers did not beat any benefit to the Eastern Front until the summer of 1944. And the Soviet cruisers were very active in the battles until the summer of 1944.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 September 2020 18: 52
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And the Soviet cruisers were very active in the battles until the summer of 1944.

      And you can read more?
    2. Constanty
      Constanty 1 September 2020 22: 21
      -1
      The heavy cruisers of the Kriegsmarine have fought in many seas, mistakenly transferring the entire war to the Eastern Front in this particular case. - after the death of the leader of "Kharkov" and two destroyers sunk by the Luftwaffe, the activities of large ships of the Black Sea Fleet was even banned by Stalin. The fact that Soviet cruisers (especially the Black Sea Fleet, because xomaNN wrote about the NK (battleship and cruisers) of the Black Sea Fleet) were very actively involved in battles until the summer of 1944, this is a novelty from an alternative history
  • NF68
    NF68 1 September 2020 16: 31
    0
    The first pancake for the Germans in terms of creating heavy cruisers was not entirely successful. Perhaps in the future, having gained experience, the Germans would have taken into account the previously made mistakes and could get something more successful behind the base of the same cruisers.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 2 September 2020 00: 45
    +1
    It is strange that not a word about the features of the CMU ... angry
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 15
      0
      Quote: DrEng527
      It is strange that not a word about the features of the CMU ... angry

      The problem is that in many respects the "features" are strongly contrived in places. :)
      And on the SEU "Hippers" you can write a separate book ...
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 3 September 2020 10: 07
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        strongly contrived in places. :)

        here is the field for work and self-expression, but the author avoided ...
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 September 2020 10: 34
    -1
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: Kostadinov
    And the Soviet cruisers were very active in the battles until the summer of 1944.

    And you can read more?

    And in more detail:
    the defense of Talin - August 41, the defense of Leningrad from September 41 - January 44, the defense of Odessa - until October 41, the defense of Sevastopol until June 42, the battle for the Caucasus until the summer of 1943.
    the unblocking of Leningrad in January 44, the offensive on Finland - summer 44.
    Enough? It is possible and in much more detail.
    All Soviet cruisers shot their main guns in the war.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 September 2020 14: 17
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      defense of Leningrad from September 41 to January 44

      Quote: Kostadinov
      the unblocking of Leningrad in January 44, the offensive on Finland - summer 44.

      In this case, KRL KBF is defended in the port, firing from piers and anchorages.
      And thank God - because in the Baltic it was possible to catch a mine even near Kronstadt.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      battle for the Caucasus until the summer of 1943.

      The last time the Voroshilov KRL opened fire on February 1, 1943.
      KRL "Molotov" from August 2, 1942 to July 31, 1943 was under repair after the loss of the aft end due to torpedo hit.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 28
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Enough? It is possible and in much more detail.

      I do not want to get involved in a pointless dispute about the "usefulness" of the Soviet Navy in the Great Patriotic War.
      In the current situation, the Soviet Navy did everything possible and impossible to win, but this is not the job for which the fleet is intended ...

      Quote: Kostadinov
      All Soviet cruisers shot their main guns in the war.

      "Voroshilov" - the consumption of shells during the Second World War - 703
      "Molotov" - 1445
      "Bitter" - 2311
      There is no summary information on Kirov.
      The survivability of the 180-mm B-27 gun - 320 rounds.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 September 2020 11: 03
    0
    Quote: Constanty
    The heavy cruisers of the Kriegsmarine have fought in many seas, mistakenly transferring the entire war to the Eastern Front in this particular case. - after the death of the leader of "Kharkov" and two destroyers sunk by the Luftwaffe, the activities of large ships of the Black Sea Fleet was even banned by Stalin. The fact that Soviet cruisers (especially the Black Sea Fleet, because xomaNN wrote about the NK (battleship and cruisers) of the Black Sea Fleet) were very actively involved in battles until the summer of 1944, this is a novelty from an alternative history

    1. On the Eastern Front, the fate of Germany was decided, and there the Kriegsmarine cruiser practically did not hit it until autumn 44. Only one unfinished German cruiser fought with all its might in the East because it was bought by the USSR. From these very expensive ships did not beat any benefit on the fateful front for Germany until the moment when everything was irretrievably lost.
    2. Until summer 44 cruisers of the Baltic Fleet fought, so there is nothing new in this. The activity of large ships of the Black Sea Fleet was stopped by Stalin in October 43, when there was no longer a great need for it, and where such a need was, the cruiser continued to fight. On the contrary, Hitler ordered the disarming of heavy ships in December 42 at a decisive moment in the war, when it was necessary to beat the fighter with all his might. This is the difference.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 34
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      On the Eastern Front, the fate of Germany was being decided, and there the Kriegsmarine cruiser practically did not hit it until the fall of 44.

      Remind you when the Red Army reached the Baltic coast?

      Quote: Kostadinov
      From these very expensive ships did not beat any benefit on the fateful front for Germany until the moment when everything was irretrievably lost.

      Tell us how you would use a cruiser in the Baltic from winter 42-43 (New Year's battle) to September 1944.

      Quote: Kostadinov
      2. Until the summer 44 cruisers of the Baltic Fleet fought, so there is nothing new in this.

      In floating battery mode, but this work is not at all typical for cruisers ...

      Quote: Kostadinov
      On the contrary, Hitler ordered the disarming of heavy ships in December 42 at a decisive moment in the war, when it was necessary to beat the fighter with all his might. This is the difference.

      Let me tell you a terrible secret: only "Hipper" was put into reserve (and without disarmament). Reason: the need for large-scale repair of the power plant ...
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 September 2020 16: 21
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The last time the Voroshilov KRL opened fire on February 1, 1943.

    If a ship does not open fire, does it not take part in hostilities?
    In this case, the KRL KBF defended themselves in the port, firing from the berths and from the anchorages.

    The ship can fire, but if it does it from the port berth, does it also not count as participation in hostilities?
    According to these criteria, the battleship Tirpitz did not participate in hostilities throughout the war, except for the operation on Spitsbergen, very important for the fate of the Reich. I don't remember whether he opened fire there.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 18: 39
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If a ship does not open fire, does it not take part in hostilities?

      OK ... In what operations did Voroshilov take part from February 1, 1943 to August 18, 1944?

      Quote: Kostadinov
      The ship can fire, but if it does it from the port berth, does it also not count as participation in hostilities?

      This is important work ...
      But this is not a navy job.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 September 2020 19: 07
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If a ship does not open fire, does it not take part in hostilities?

      The transition from Poti to Batumi on February 17, 1943 will be considered military operations? wink
      More "Voroshilov" until August 18, 1944 did not go anywhere.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The ship can fire, but if it does it from the port berth, does it also not count as participation in hostilities?

      It counts. But the KRL did not perform combat exits (however, like all KBF ships from EM and above). So formally KRL defended in the database.
      In addition, you do not need to build a cruiser to operate from a base on a coastal target. With the same success, this task can be performed by any galosh from the last war, a pair of monitors or three railway batteries. smile
      Quote: Kostadinov
      According to these criteria, the battleship Tirpitz did not participate in hostilities throughout the war, except for the operation on Spitsbergen, very important for the fate of the Reich. I don't remember whether he opened fire there.

      Forgot about Sportpalast and Rösselsprung. The second, of course, for the Tirpitz group failed due to repeated detection by our and British forces (but on the whole it was successful - the KON was dispersed), but in the first LC it was even necessary to repulse a torpedo bombardment.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 2 September 2020 19: 32
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The second, of course, for the "Tirpitz" group fell through due to the repeated detection of it by our and British forces (but on the whole it was successful - the KOH dispersed),

        Yet the logical connection is slightly lost: the convoy was disbanded before the Battle Group went to sea.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 September 2020 09: 34
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Yet the logical connection is slightly lost: the convoy was disbanded before the Battle Group went to sea.

          There is a complex logical connection: KON was disbanded because of intelligence information about the readiness of the Tirpitz group to go to sea. Well, hurry up a little ... smile
  • certero
    certero 3 September 2020 01: 07
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The policy of Poles and Czechs towards ethnic Germans who came to their countries by accident was criminal and insane. T

    Can you explain how this was expressed?
  • certero
    certero 3 September 2020 01: 16
    0
    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
    It turns out in the Middle Ages as well. Only there are fewer specialists, so the public believes him. The conversational genre of Goblin and Zhukov has long been a historical "Petrosianism"
    such statements should not be unfounded. Give a few examples, otherwise it will turn out that you are just shaking the air
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 3 September 2020 07: 22
      -1
      listen, for example, as Zhukov keeps counting the inhabitants and soldiers from each Russian principality
  • certero
    certero 3 September 2020 01: 29
    0
    Quote: Kostadinov
    it didn't hit

    Do you specifically write a verb through the letter "and"? What for?
    1. Kostadinov
      Kostadinov 3 September 2020 13: 48
      0
      Quote: certero
      Quote: Kostadinov
      it didn't hit

      Do you specifically write a verb through the letter "and"? What for?

      On my keyboard there is no "s" and my Russian is poor, for which my apologies.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 3 September 2020 09: 35
    0
    It counts. But the KRL did not perform combat exits (however, like all KBF ships from EM and above). So, formally, KRL defended in the database.

    Now I understand - the ship fought, fired, bombed it, but the combat output was not fulfilled and formally defended in the base. The passage from Talin to Leningrad is also not a combat exit, but only the relocation of the ship.
    In addition, you do not need to build a cruiser to operate from a base on a coastal target. With the same success, this task can be performed by any galosh from the last war, a pair of monitors or three railway batteries.

    That's right, and you don't need a cruiser to transport soldiers. We did not think that the enemy would be so bistro at the gates of Leningrad and Sevastopol. All the same, Soviet admirals riveted incomparably fewer cruisers than German ones.
    Forgot about Sportpalast and Rösselsprung. The second, of course, for the Tirpitz group failed due to repeated detection by our and British forces (but on the whole it was successful - the KON was dispersed), but in the first LC it was even necessary to repulse a torpedo bombardment.

    In other words, is the fire of only anti-aircraft guns also counted as a combat exit if the ship leaves the base?
    Is it counted and if you left the base for a short time, did not open the fire, but the convoy dispersed?
    Count the combat outputs as you like, but for the war it is much more important how much and how the ship fired at the enemy.
  • certero
    certero 3 September 2020 18: 16
    0
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    listen, for example, as Zhukov keeps counting the inhabitants and soldiers from each Russian principality

    I listened. leads quite reasonably. Because they use a certain technique.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 3 September 2020 22: 03
      -2
      yeah, but the very technique of the type "in the hut on average 4 people multiply all by 1 percent of the soldiers and add 500 horsemen to each tough prince, not the steep one by 200, but the third-rate one by 50" is not fully reasoned: why not 5 or 6? why not three? why is the percentage 1,0 and not 0,85 or 1,12? why not take three times more in Novgorod - a rich proud man, they can buy more chain mail? maybe some have 100 third-rate riders, and some 20? etc. etc. In general, dislike him from me
  • certero
    certero 5 September 2020 01: 28
    0
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    hut on average 4 people multiply all by 1 percent of the soldiers and add to each

    Come up with and justify another technique. And so Zhukov has it, unlike others who tell tales about one hundred thousandth troops
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 6 September 2020 18: 36
      0
      Quote: certero
      Come up with and justify another technique. And so Zhukov has it, unlike others who tell tales about one hundred thousandth troops

      In general, he is also a fan of Zhukov, and of course, this technique is better than the absence of it, but sometimes his confidence in far from obvious cases annoys him. For example, talking about Grunwald, he limits the size of the armies to the size of the field, but sorry, the Grunwald field is approximately equal to the Borodino field, and there you yourself know how many fought. Or limiting the army of Batu in 1237, he speaks of the throughput of watering places, although of course he does not know which front they were moving along. Likewise, in determining the mob ability, it is quite possible to be mistaken at times, having missed some non-obvious factor. In general, he himself often says that "these are our assumptions", but still sometimes he is overly categorical. Although it is necessary to convince the "minors", but in case of a mistake, they will spit and shout "he lied to us!"
  • certero
    certero 7 September 2020 00: 37
    0
    Quote: Kwas
    Similarly, in determining the mob ability, it is quite possible to be mistaken at times, having missed some non-obvious factor

    Regarding the Middle Ages, we can always compare with a similar number of troops in Europe. There are chronicle records and, in general, the order of numbers is about the same.
  • Biodred
    Biodred 18 October 2020 17: 35
    0
    A strange statement: "the Germans could not make three-barreled towers for large calibers." Uh-huh. They did it for the Deutschlands, but for the 203mm barrels they couldn't. Yeah. Rather, they did not intend to.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 October 2020 21: 28
      0
      Quote: BioDRED
      Rather, they did not intend to.

      In August 1937, Krupp presented to the military the project of a 3-gun turret for 20.3cm SK L / 56 guns.
      Remained unclaimed.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 27 October 2020 20: 03
    0
    The title is not correct. Good ships, no worse and no better than their sister ships in the world. We fought heartily. As ships are quite adequate for their era. Here is how they were applied another question. Prince Eugen was even taken by the United States to gut. I, too, do not like the passivity and not the power of the BF during the WWII, everything is known in comparison.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 October 2020 21: 24
      0
      Quote: Evgeny Seleznev
      Prince Eugen was even taken by the United States to gut.

      Just won the lottery ...
      1. Evgeny Seleznev
        Evgeny Seleznev 31 October 2020 15: 53
        0
        The Americans were very interested in radar and sonar equipment there.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 31 October 2020 16: 08
          0
          Maybe interested.
          But the ships of "Group C" were literally pulled from the cap of the British naval attaché.
          The Americans were just lucky.