Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. Shot damn thing that didn't come out lumpy

38

Yes, sometimes the path of a ship is similar to that of a man. To be the firstborn in a huge family, to nurture the younger ones, to go through the entire war from the first to the last day, survive burning in atomic fire, and then be shot in gratitude.


All this is not about a cruiser, but about Pensacola-class cruisers. First American "Washington" class cruisers.

In fact, if in theory, these ships were supposed to become some kind of pioneers in the class of heavy cruisers, play the role of training ships, that is, no one took them seriously. But it turned out completely differently.

It all started long ago. The year is 1922, the same Washington Agreement, which was not remembered for the night, which, on the one hand, seemed to have reduced the intensity of the battleship race, on the other, a total headache began in terms of cruisers around the world.


All over the world, where there were decent fleets. And the main role here was played by the British, who, well, simply did not want to let their Hawkins (not so-so ships, but these are the British), and therefore they dragged their standards, from which now everyone had to start.

The United States faced a difficult choice: Great Britain, which still ruled the seas, could instantly move from the category of allies to the category of opponents, and not potential ones. And also on the horizon loomed Japan, which, as it were, remained extremely unhappy with the outcome of the First World War and was developing its own fleet with might and main.

And the Hawkins imposed as a standard did not suit the Americans very much. It has already become clear that 10 tons will not fit normal armor and normal armament from 000-mm guns.

So the cruising race began. And in the United States began to develop new ships, which were to make the Hawkins in the Atlantic and the Japanese Furutaki in the Pacific.

By the way, the problem was quite big. Two oceans without a network of intermediate bases (like the British) - this is not for you to gurgle in the Mediterranean Sea.

Gradually, the ideas were shaped into something tangible, and the output was a project of a cruiser with a displacement of 10 thousand tons with about 1000 tons of armor, with ten 203-mm guns and a speed of about 31 knots.


The armor, of course, was not enough. She still protected from a 152-mm projectile, but 203-mm classmates began to pierce already from 120 cables into the armor belt.

Nevertheless, it was necessary to start somewhere, and the Americans built two cruisers, Pensacola and Salt Lake City.

Combat ships. Cruisers. Shot damn thing that didn't come out lumpy

The project turned out to be quite nice, but not devoid of flaws. They turned out to be fast ships, with very decent armament, with just excellent autonomy. But I had to pay for this by booking, which in fact did not exist.

The American naval commanders were repelled by the plan that long-range 203-mm guns with good ballistics and accuracy would be able to cope with enemy destroyers and light cruisers, and ships could simply escape from battleships and battle cruisers due to their good speed.

Pensacola was laid down on October 27, 1926, launched on April 25, 1929, and entered service on February 6, 1930.

Salt Lake City was laid down on June 9, 1927, launched on January 23, 1929, and entered service on December 11, 1929.

Displacement.

The ships actually did not differ in displacement. Pensacola had a standard 9 tons and a full 100 tons. Salt Lake City - standard 12 tons, full - 050 tons.

Physical dimensions.

Length 178,5 m.Breadth 19,8 m. Draft 5,9 m.

Booking:
- belt - 63,5 ... 102 mm;
- traverse - 63,5 ... 25 mm;
- deck - 45 ... 25 mm;
- towers - 63,5 ... 19 mm;
- barbets - 19 mm;
- cutting - 32 mm.

We can say - at the level of Italian cruisers. If the American battleships were booked on the principle of "all or nothing", then there is "or nothing" in all its glory.

Engines. 8 White-Forster boilers, 4 Parsons steam turbines, 107 HP from. Speed ​​000 knots (shown by Salt Lake City). Cruising range 32,5 nautical miles (cruising at 10 knots).

Armament.


It worked out here from the heart. The main caliber was ten 203-mm guns, which were housed in two two-gun and two three-gun turrets. Very original, the British battleship scheme is the opposite: the three-gun turrets were installed higher than the two-gun turrets, because the hefty barbet of the three-gun turret could not fit into the sharp nose of the cruiser.



This placement provided both good aiming angles and range. When the trunks were raised by 41 degrees, the shells flew as much as 159 cables, that is, at 29,5 km. It is very doubtful that the cruiser would have fired at such a distance, but there was an opportunity.

A shell weighing 118 kg flew out of the barrel with an initial speed of 853 m / s, that is, pretty good by world standards.

In terms of the main caliber, the Pensacola immediately overtook the Hawkins by three corps, which, in the most successful scenario, could only use 6 of its main caliber 190mm guns. Against an onboard volley of ten 203-mm Pensacola guns - this does not look very good even in theory.

Secondary caliber.


Here, too, it was better than the same British or Japanese. We don't even try to compare with the French and Italians, because initially, according to the project, each cruiser was supposed to carry 4 Mark 10 Mod.2 guns with a caliber of 127 mm, but the American admirals who went into a rage demanded to increase the number of station wagons to 8 pieces. Four guns on each side in single mounts.

This is practically the same weapon that was used on destroyers. fleet USA, that is, it was distinguished by a high rate of fire (up to 15 rounds per minute) and a good range (up to 25 km). This weapon was generally considered the best universal weapon of the Second World War.

Light anti-aircraft weapons.

The cruiser's light anti-aircraft armament originally consisted of only eight 12,7 mm Browning machine guns. And then the paranoia of American admirals before aviation played a very significant role. The ships began to re-equip precisely in terms of air defense, which came in handy later, when the aviation really showed who was the boss at sea.

First, the machine guns were replaced with two Chicago Piano installations. The 28 mm quad automatic cannons developed by the US Navy's Bureau of Armaments were, of course, better than machine guns, but they were used very limitedly throughout the war due to their low rate of fire (up to 90 rounds per minute) and terrifying reliability.


Nevertheless, in November 1941, the machine guns were removed on the cruisers and two quadruple 28-mm nightmares and eight single-barreled 20-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed. The naval crews howled with happiness and were heard: in the same year, the 28-mm mounts were replaced with quad 40-mm anti-aircraft mounts from Bofors, and the number of 20-mm machine guns was increased to twelve.


In total, at the beginning of the main naval battles, the Pensacola had 8 40-mm barrels and 12 20-mm barrels. It's better than anyone else in the world. For a start - just amazing.


By 1944, the number of quad 40-mm mounts on each cruiser had increased to six, and 20-mm assault rifles to 20. In the summer of 1945, during modernization, another four-barreled 40-mm mount was added.

Thus, the end of the war, the cruiser was met with 28 40 mm barrels and 20 20 mm barrels on the sides. This is a very serious indicator.

Yes, the artillery also included two 47-mm Hotchkiss cannons for salutes. It was possible to shoot a careless battalion or cook from them.

Mine torpedo armament.

Everything is very simple: two 533-mm three-tube torpedo tubes, which were located inside the hull, one on each side. Because of this, the vehicles had rather limited angles for launching torpedoes, 60 degrees towards the stern and towards the bow of the ship.

I must say that torpedo tubes did not serve as decoration for ships for a long time, because the American command radically revised the tactics of using torpedoes and the cruisers parted (without much regret) with this type of weapon already in 1936.

The Pensacols could have laid mines. Each cruiser was equipped with six rail tracks for installing mines (three on each side), designed for 178 minutes. The two outermost tracks were used only for storing mines, and the four inner tracks were used for both storage and installation.

But since the concept of using cruisers by the American fleet did not imply frequent laying of mines by heavy cruisers, mines and mine rails were stored on the shore, in warehouses, and had to be installed immediately before setting.

However, there is no information about mine laying performed by "Pensacol".

Aviation group.


Everything was beautiful here: two powder catapults and four seaplanes. There were no hangars, so two planes were always on catapults, and two on the deck near the superstructure. At first they were the O3U "Corsair" from the "Vout" company, rather old (born in 1926) biplanes with the ability to change floats to a wheeled chassis, which were eventually replaced by OS2U "Kingfisher".


Old "Corsair"


"Kingfisher"

"Kingfisher" also did not shine, having a speed of only 264 km / h, and the armament of two 7,62-mm machine guns did not make him a serious fighter, even theoretically. But a very good flight range of 1 km and the ability to take up to 296 kg of bombs made him a good reconnaissance spotter, and as an anti-submarine defense aircraft, "Kingfisher" was quite.

They say that the pilots of the Kingfishers from the Pensacola wing even shot down a Japanese fighter ... Well, it is written in stories cruisers.

At the end of 1943, one catapult from each cruiser was dismantled, respectively, and the number of aircraft was reduced to two. And in 1945, all aviation equipment was removed.

In 1940, an experimental CXAM radar was installed on Pensacola. During the war, both ships received an FC artillery fire control radar, an SK search radar and two SG anti-aircraft fire control radars.

The wartime crew consisted of 1054 people.

An interesting point: the Pensacola-class cruisers were the last American ships with outboard bunks. On ships that were designed later, stationary bunks were placed. But the Pensacola was sheathed from the inside with cork sheets in the old fashioned way, so in terms of sound insulation and temperature for the crew of the cruiser they were very comfortable ships.

Combat service.


Since the ships were the first "Washingtonians", their command did not consider them seriously, so the "Pensacolam" was prepared for the role of combat training ships. The main task was the training of the crews, in particular the training of officers for service on heavy cruisers. Therefore, at the beginning of the service, the cruisers did not leave long voyages.

After the outbreak of World War II, in October 1939, the Pensacola was transferred to Pearl Harbor, where she continued to make training trips across that part of the Pacific Ocean.

The combat ship officially became in January 1941. And from December 1941 - completely combat, since the United States entered the war in full.

The training trips actually saved the Pensacola, because when the Japanese aircraft were smashing Pearl Harbor, the cruiser was on another trip to Manila. Lucky. Further "Pensacola" participated in an unsuccessful raid on Wake Island, and then was assigned to the escort group of the aircraft carrier "Lexington".

As part of this group, the cruiser first came into contact with the aircraft of the Japanese Navy. The cruiser's artillery helped repel a raid of two waves of bombers near Bougainville Island. 17 Japanese aircraft were shot down by Lexington aircraft and air defense ships.

Then the cruiser was transferred to the escort group of the aircraft carrier "Yorktown". In general, it can be said that the ship's air defense artillery was sufficient to resist Japanese aircraft.


Pensacola took part in the Battle of Midway Atoll. In that battle, the cruiser first covered the Enterprise, and then was transferred to the aid of the Yorktown. The Pensacola gunners shot down 4 Japanese planes during the second raid on the aircraft carrier, but Yorktown did not save it. The Pensacola returned to the Enterprise and the Yorktown sank.

In general, such a use of a heavy cruiser was not entirely clever and justified. The effectiveness of the Pensacola's air defense, of course, was higher than that of the destroyer, as well as survivability, but still, the role of a heavy cruiser in battle should be somewhat different than protection from aircraft. Especially if this is not a specialized air defense cruiser.

On the other hand, the use of a heavy cruiser as an escort ship and in terms of anti-submarine defense is very much so-so. A cruiser is primarily a strike ship. Therefore, despite the presence of the Pensacola in the guard, the Japanese calmly put the Saratoga out of action, and then sank the Wasp. And in the battle at Santa Cruz in October 1942, the Japanese planes were decently trimmed with Hornet and Enetrprise.

And then, in the battle for Guadalcanal, Pensacola habitually tried to guard the same refurbished Enterprise.

Then there was a battle at the Savo Island. Five cruisers and seven destroyers went to sea on November 29 to intercept a Japanese convoy heading for Guadalcanal. On November 30, shortly before midnight, American ships saw Japanese ships on radar screens. These were 8 destroyers of Admiral Tanaka.

It is clear that the Japanese did not see anything good, for the Americans had a complete advantage in equipment and weapons. Using data from the radar, the Americans were the first to open fire and sank the destroyer Takanami. American destroyers fired 20 torpedoes towards the enemy, but they all missed their targets.

But the Japanese destroyers responded by firing a flock of 44 torpedoes in just 10 minutes. And the nightmare began. Four American heavy cruisers were hit by Japanese Long Lances. The Northampton sank, while the Pensacola, New Orleans and Minneapolis were able to drag back to Tulagi.


Damage to New Orleans

As for the Pensacola, one torpedo hitting the side near the mainmast caused flooding of the aft engine room, oil leakage from the tanks, severe fire, and later - explosion of part of the ammunition in the main caliber turret No. 3.


But the crew coped with it, and the ship did not go to the bottom, but under repair, which lasted until October 1943.


From November 1943, the cruiser was increasingly used to support the ground forces. It finally dawned on the admirals that, as an artillery ship, the Pensacola was of greater value than an escort ship.

Maloelap, Vautier, Kwajalein, Majuro, Roy-Namur, Palau, Yap, Uliti and Uleai - this is a list of islands on which the Japanese positions were hit by the 203-mm shells of the cruiser. Until April 1, 1944, the Pensacola took part in many landing operations precisely as a strike ship.


Then the cruiser ended up in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, where she was engaged in the same work - shelling the Japanese garrisons on the islands of Matsuva, Paramushir, Wake, Markus.

On the night of November 11-12, 1944, during an operation off the island of Iwo Jima, the Pensacola miraculously escaped the attack of the Kaiten torpedo-suicide bomber, who directed his shell at a tanker passing by. Until March 3, Pensacola provided fire support for the landing operation to liberate Iwo Jima and the neighboring islands of Chichijima and Hahajima.

It is believed that it was in the battles for Iwo Jima that Lieutenant Douglas Gandhi shot down the Zero on the Kingfisher. On February 17, 1945, the cruiser was damaged in an artillery duel with a Japanese coastal battery. The ship was hit by 6 shells.


The last battle in the cruiser's career was the Battle of Okinawa. During the war years, the cruiser earned thirteen battle stars from the American command and the nickname "Gray Ghost" from the Japanese side. Salt Lake City, which has been involved in virtually all operations with Pensacola, has earned 11 stars.

After the end of the war, the ships were engaged in the delivery of military contingents to the United States from the Pacific Islands.

On April 29, 1946, the cruisers were designated targets for an atomic bomb test at Bikini Atoll.


On the deck of the Pensacola after the atomic bomb test. "Don't take away for souvenirs!"

After participating in trials from June 1 to 25, the cruisers were towed to Kwajalein Atoll. After a complex of structural and radiological studies, the ships were withdrawn from the fleet and were used as targets in the US Navy's artillery fire.


"Pensacola" a day before its final

Pensacola and Salt Lake City were sunk by gunfire on November 10, 1948.


Drowning "Salt Lake City"

In general, such a controversial end. It is difficult to say which death is "more pleasant" and more honorable for a ship, under the cutters for cutting into metal or under the shells of their former brothers in battles.

As a result.


The Pensacola-class cruiser, unlike many classmates in other countries, turned out to be a really harmonious ship. She was as fast (really, not on paper) as the Italian cruisers. He was well armed, like Japanese ships. It had a good power reserve like the British. The only thing he really didn't have was armor. But you had to pay for the above.

The second drawback is the initially weak anti-aircraft armament. But, as practice has shown, everything can be solved if there is an underload reserve. And, since the ships had an underload initially, it turned out to be as easy to bump "erlikons" and "bofors" as possible, as to remove the "extra" catapult and torpedo tubes.

And the cruisers calmly went through the entire war, "from bell to bell."

I would say that they turned out to be really good ships, despite the fact that usually the first pancake is lumpy. In the case of Pensacola and Salt Lake City, this did not work out.
Author:
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Comrade
    Comrade 29 September 2020 05: 22
    15
    In the article in one of the photographs, the British battleship King George V is playing the role of the American Pensacola-class cruiser.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 29 September 2020 06: 05
      +8
      More interesting and detailed about Pensacola is written by Ivanov in his work "American Heavy Cruisers". For ship modelers his series, in general "Mecca and Medina" In one cover !!!
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 29 September 2020 18: 44
        +3
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        More interesting and detailed about Pensacola is written by Ivanov in his work "American Heavy Cruisers". For ship modelers his series, in general "Mecca and Medina" In one cover !!!

        Everything is more interesting and detailed in the work of Arseniy Malov "Pensacola type SRT - Marine Collection, №№ 4 and 6 for 2013.
        1. unknown
          unknown 3 October 2020 08: 22
          0
          Moreover, Malov is a co-author of Patyanin.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 29 September 2020 07: 53
      10
      Quote: Comrade
      the role of the American Pensacola-class cruiser is the English battleship King George V

      hi Let me disagree a little ...
      Very original, the British battleship scheme is the opposite: the three-gun turrets were installed higher than the two-gun turrets, because the hefty barbet of the three-gun turret could not fit into the cruiser's sharp nose.

      The Aglitsky battleship was presented as an example for the one described by the author. I, of course, neighing well from this assumption, but the English scheme was not even close to that. And even more so, the battleships that entered service much later than the American cruisers initially carried three 4-gun turrets, but to improve stability, the sublime turret had to be made two-gun ... What is presented by the author as an "English scheme" ... Hmmm .... laughing laughing laughing
      Here is how an analogue of the American scheme, just the opposite, one can still agree, because the earlier battleships "Nevada" and "Oklahoma" just carried 10 barrels in two three-gun turrets and two lofty two-gun turrets. So the author zhzhot laughing
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 29 September 2020 14: 10
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        The English scheme was not even close.

        but at the same time, the author's explanation of the layout of the GC is reasonable ... request
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 29 September 2020 18: 33
          +1
          About what? If with regards to the change in places of 2- and 3-gun turrets of the main battery in comparison with the "Nevada", then yes, because the cruising lines to achieve high speed did not allow in the relative proximity of the placement of the main turrets at the extremities to place 3-gun towers below. ... So it is written in any monograph.
          And here is the fact that the "English scheme" is intertwined with an example in the form of "King George 5" (or, "Prince of Wales", or "Duke of York", or "Anson", or "Howe" - HEZ, who is there from them) - so it really brings a smile wink smile
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 29 September 2020 18: 48
        +4
        Quote: Rurikovich
        but to improve stability, the elevated tower had to be made two-gun.

        In fact, two barrels had to be sawed off after it became clear that probable opponents would build an LC with a 15 "main caliber and had to think about strengthening the armor.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 29 September 2020 19: 31
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          that probable opponents will build a 15 "main caliber LC

          Yeah yes ,I agree.
      3. Comrade
        Comrade 30 September 2020 04: 18
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Let me disagree a little ... The Aglitsky battleship was presented as an example for the one described by the author.

        Dear Andrew,
        Your objection is reasonable, the author's train of thought is clear, you are right.
    3. Kwas
      Kwas 30 September 2020 11: 06
      0
      That's right, this "Pensacola" was compared with him in the placement of the main guns, as the author said "the British scheme is vice versa."
    4. yehat2
      yehat2 2 October 2020 12: 39
      -1
      no, this is a photo to compare the layout of towers with different numbers of barrels.
      In the king it is usual - 4 trunks below, 2 above.
    5. Mordred79
      Mordred79 3 October 2020 10: 20
      0
      The author mentions that the Americans used the scheme of British battleships in terms of armament, but on the contrary - two-gun turrets at the bottom, three gun turrets at the top, and gives a photo for comparison
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 29 September 2020 08: 30
    10
    Conventional first generation Washington cardboard cruisers request
    With 75mm protection KTO and we can say box-shaped protection of cellars

    And the rest will not really save even from 6 "shells. The cruisers, even with the enemy's classmates, did not have normal sparring, where it was possible to check the real survivability of the shells. And torpedoes ... I have said more than once that it does not matter how many torpedoes the ship received, But it is important where they end up. So a well-built ship with a competent crew and a hit outside the bulkhead can easily withstand a torpedo hit. The usual survivability of a large ship.
    The displacement reserve was also given by the placement of the main battery guns according to the one-arm design, plus the placement of part of the ammunition in the towers and barbets, coupled with the savings in the hull, made it possible to place solid weapons and decent fuel reserves necessary for operations in the oceans in 10000 tons.
    So we see the work of designers to cram the necessary into the unpushable. Which leads to a deterioration in other characteristics. For example, these things were famous for their disgusting stability, seaworthiness, crew habitability (although it depends on what to compare with).
    But here at least the Americans fit into the real top ten tonnage smile
    Conclusion - a typical Washingtonian of the first generation with some good characteristics at the expense of other inconveniences. Such is it, panimash, the price of restrictions.
    An article will go for the victims of the exam (if you do not take into account the joke with the "English" scheme, as mentioned in another comment) laughing hi
    1. unknown
      unknown 3 October 2020 09: 00
      -1
      Unusual.
      Compare the standard displacement of heavy cruisers.
      And even, not only the first generation.
      The British met 10300 tons. At the same time, they had a "Washington standard" for weapons. By booking - protection of cellars and cars. And what about boiler protection? Subsequent modernization with a belt along the waterline increased the standard displacement to 10900 tons.
      The French had a lot of fun.
      Honestly noted in 10000 tons. Everything else, up to "Algeria", attempts to make a protected cruiser out of an armored cruiser. While maintaining the standard displacement. Happened ? Not really. I have already noted many times that if the French returned to the old scheme - the carapace deck, it would have turned out much better. But, even in real life, the first Americans in terms of booking are not inferior to Suffren.
      Comparison with the first Japanese is generally brilliant.
      The first Japanese pair, after modernization in armament and "bulging", was already pulling 8700 tons.
      And the second pair is already at 9088 tons. Armament - 6 * 203 mm, belt 76 mm.
      And the first American pair - 9100/9097 tons. Armament - 10 * 203 mm, belt 63,5 mm.
      There is a difference ? Not for nothing, the British called the Japanese design school "amateurish". Fair enough.
      The first Italians are more interesting. But, they were able to keep within only 10500 tons, which is 1400 tons more than the standard displacement of the first American pair.
      And what is 1400 tons in terms of booking?
      The Italians could well not bother with a new project of the Zara type, but rebuild a cruiser of the Trento type, but replacing the KTU with the one that was used on the Zarah. Difference in masses: 2330 tons and 1400 tons.
      930 tons in addition to the 888 tons already available. Total: 1818 tons. It would not be bad at all.
      The armor weight of the most protected light cruisers of the "Belfast" class is 1861 tons.
      The Americans built several series of cruisers on the basis of the first pair. On the "Portland" class, in fact, having loaded the ships up to the "Washington" standard, they received a completely protected cruiser.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 3 October 2020 10: 53
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        Comparison with the first Japanese is generally brilliant.

        And maybe we will still compare with "Mioko", and not with the scouts of programs from 21-22 years? :)
        1. unknown
          unknown 4 October 2020 06: 35
          0
          Myoko fell out of the Washington standard right away. And after all the upgrades, it got so heavy ... In a word, overgrown. So is Hipper. Only, it didn't bring them happiness. Their combat capabilities are not as much higher as their displacement is higher.
          Comparison with the first Japanese is legitimate.
          War is not a sports tournament, where a curtain of the masses takes place before the competition so that the participants fall into their own weight class.
          In addition, the Japanese did not stop at the first pair, but built the second one, according to the "improved" version.
          We have already discussed with you that the best Japanese heavy cruisers were Tone-class ships. They were the most economical in terms of displacement. And if the Japanese had moved away from the requirement of high speed for ships of this class, they could well keep within the "Washington" displacement standard.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 4 October 2020 13: 38
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            Myoko fell out of the Washington standard right away.

            Lacroix writes about the actual displacement of the standard displacement of "Mioko" at the date of commissioning at 10554 tons.
            "Fell out" is not stronger than the rest.

            Quote: ignoto
            War is not a sports tournament, where a curtain of the masses takes place before the competition so that the participants fall into their own weight class.

            Therefore, it is necessary to compare with the "myoko", laid down TWO years earlier "pensacol".

            Quote: ignoto
            In addition, the Japanese did not stop at the first pair, but built the second one, according to the "improved" version.

            Then let’s compare the "pensacola" with the "takao" with which they were built simultaneously.

            Quote: ignoto
            We have already discussed with you that the best Japanese heavy cruisers were Tone-class ships.

            I do not argue.

            Quote: ignoto
            They were the most economical in terms of displacement.

            Due to the specific layout. "Stretch" the towers along the entire length of the hull in a "classic layout" - all savings will instantly evaporate.

            Quote: ignoto
            And if the Japanese had moved away from the requirement of high speed for ships of this class, they could well keep within the "Washington" displacement standard.

            The Japanese had their own views on the tactics of clashes with the enemy, so "if" does not roll ...
            1. unknown
              unknown 6 October 2020 17: 28
              0
              1. "Mioko" did not fall out much ... at first, but how much did the "bulging" increase its displacement?
              2. Can be compared with "Takao". On the Japanese side, nothing outstanding. In this displacement, you can build a more protected ship. Yes, and the rate on speed has not justified itself. The HUNDREDS OF TONS saved could be spent on deck booking.
              You know as well as I do that there is a point of view that for WWII cruisers the belt was superfluous, and the armored deck was the main element of protection.
              3. Do not forget the battle at the Commander Islands, in which two Japanese heavy cruisers were unable to defeat one Salt Lake City.
              4. The main thing is that the Americans were able to keep within 9100 tons of standard displacement at 10 * 203mm and side belt. And who else could in such a displacement ...
              5. If you choose the best heavy cruiser, then it will be a "pocket battleship" with its 11 ".
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 6 October 2020 18: 57
                0
                Quote: ignoto
                1. "Mioko" did not fall out much ... at first, but how much did the "bulging" increase its displacement?

                There were upgrades later.
                In addition, what prevented the Americans from properly modernizing their ships, and not being limited to laying ballast in the bottom space.

                Quote: ignoto
                On the Japanese side, nothing outstanding.

                Even if it is nothing outstanding, it would have been necessary to fight against what the Japanese put forward.

                Quote: ignoto
                You know as well as I do that there is a point of view that for WWII cruisers the belt was superfluous, and the armored deck was the main element of protection.

                This is an afterthought. :)

                Quote: ignoto
                3. Do not forget the battle at the Commander Islands, in which two Japanese heavy cruisers were unable to defeat one Salt Lake City.

                If you remember that Hosogaya covered the convoy, then the question is not worth discussing ...

                Quote: ignoto
                4. The main thing is that the Americans were able to keep within 9100 tons of standard displacement at 10 * 203mm and side belt. And who else could in such a displacement ...

                The meaning of the need to pass off as a virtue?
                It only says that someone was not good at numbers.

                Quote: ignoto
                5. If you choose the best heavy cruiser, then it will be a "pocket battleship" with its 11 ".

                Rather, something like "Alaska" or "Kronstadt" ... :)
                1. unknown
                  unknown 17 October 2020 09: 15
                  0
                  You, with all my sincere respect for you, because there are not many competent opponents even on this site, have lost the essence. The bottom line is that we are looking for the ideal heavy cruiser in the "Washington" format. That is, in a standard displacement of 10000 "long" tons. The Japanese in such a displacement of a normal cruiser, that is, a ship that would not require modernization of the hull, could not do. The reason is obvious: the Japanese, although, like the British, "sea people", but the people are very young. Official Japanese history is fiction, a section of unscientific fiction. After the so-called "Meiji revolution" in 1867, the Europeans pulled them out of the dense Middle Ages straight into capitalism. It is clear that in such a period of time the people cannot learn something qualitatively. It takes three generations just to create a normal elite. As the English say, "the main thing is that your grandfather has a higher education."
                  And the Americans were able to create a normal heavy cruiser with a displacement of 9100 "long" tons. This is due not only to design errors, but also to the strictest weight discipline during construction. Just like the Austro-Hungarian Navy. And, further, from series to series improving it. Nobody, not even the British, the second of the "sea" peoples, could do this.
                  As for the "pocket battleships", they are the best heavy cruisers. The heaviest weapon of all cruisers. Apart from linear ones, to which the two types you mentioned can rightfully be attributed.
                  The problem with all German ships, starting with destroyers, is the propulsion system.
                  The problem is strange, very strange. If we take into account that the German destroyers, and heavy cruisers, and "pocket battleships" and battleships did not suffer from a lack of displacement at all, then on all these ships the Germans could do with power plants with non-critical steam parameters, without sacrificing volume and displacement.
                  I also mentioned the diesel "pocket battleships" here. The mass of their power plant and internal volumes made it possible to easily use KTU diesel engines with non-critical steam parameters instead of diesel engines.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 17 October 2020 12: 02
                    0
                    Quote: ignoto
                    The bottom line is that we are looking for the ideal heavy cruiser in the "Washington" format. That is, in a standard displacement of 10000 "long" tons.

                    Then, IMHO, we must wait for an article about "Orleans" ... :)

                    Quote: ignoto
                    This is due not only to design mistakes, but also to the strictest weight discipline during construction.

                    Weight discipline is an interesting question: it is very clearly visible on destroyers ...

                    Quote: ignoto
                    Nobody, not even the British, the second of the "sea" peoples, could do this.

                    It seems to me that you have already lost the thread here ... :)
                    Your reasoning would make sense if all participating countries were given one TTZ, and then we would look at the result.
                    And so, the Washington requirements are too general to compare ships to the rivet, so to speak ...

                    Quote: ignoto
                    The problem is strange, very strange.

                    Yes, the problem there is not at all strange: for some reason, the Germans stick it out to the utmost, keeping quiet about the allies ...
                    Who, for example, remembers that according to the King George project they were supposed to have a cruising range of 14000 at 10 knots, but in fact there were only 6000 ...
                    BUT everyone knows very well that the Scharnhorst project had 10000 at 17 nodes, but somehow they hardly remember that in the end it turned out 7200 at 19.
                    As for the breakdowns, I got the impression that it is a question of production culture, not the quality of the project. Take the same "twins" - "Gneisenau" had no critical problems, and "Scharnhorst" all his career "suffered" from boilers, which prevented him from participating in the "Reinubung" ...
                    In general, the German power plant is such a thing in itself that it is necessary to understand the ZhBD-Machine of each ship.

                    Quote: ignoto
                    I also mentioned the diesel "pocket battleships" here. The mass of their power plant and internal volumes made it possible to easily use KTU diesel engines with non-critical steam parameters instead of diesel engines.

                    Again, the problem of the issued TTZ, not your desires. :)
                    It is unlikely that they could have obtained a comparable cruising range using KTU.
  3. Potter
    Potter 29 September 2020 08: 48
    +4
    In general, it turned out to be a completely normal 1st generation Washington cruiser. The British at the same time of construction had cardboard side and turret armor of 20mm. And 8 eight-inch versus 10 for the American. But the British were much better seaworthy.
  4. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 September 2020 09: 40
    +4
    ... initially, according to the project, each cruiser was supposed to carry 4 Mark 10 Mod.2 guns with a caliber of 127 mm, but the American admirals who went into a rage demanded to increase the number of station wagons to 8 pieces. Four guns on each side in single mounts.
    This is practically the same gun that was used on the destroyers of the US Navy, that is, it was distinguished by a high rate of fire (up to 15 rounds per minute) and a good range (up to 25 km). This weapon was generally considered the best universal weapon of the Second World War.

    The Mark 10 Mod.2 cannon is an "anti-aircraft howitzer" 5 "/ 25. It was used as a ZKDB on CD and LK and as a main battery on submarines. It was not used on EM (more precisely, the 5" / 25 was originally intended to be used on EM, but then it arrived in time 5 "/ 38)
    Universal 5 "had the designation Mark 12 and barrel length 38 calibers.
    The 28 mm quad automatic cannons, developed by the US Navy's Bureau of Armaments, were, of course, better than machine guns, but they were used very limitedly throughout the war due to their low rate of fire (up to 90 rounds per minute) and terrifying reliability.

    They were used to a limited extent because there were very few of them. The development of the American shipborne MZA dragged on for ten years. The series "Chicago pianos" appeared only in 1940, and their release was so limited that on 07.12.1941/3/XNUMX they were not even on the Pacific Fleet's LK - in the MZA nests they were temporarily equipped with XNUMX "anti-aircraft guns of the WWII era.
    Nevertheless, in November 1941, the machine guns were removed on the cruisers and two quadruple 28-mm nightmares and eight single-barreled 20-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed. The naval crews howled with happiness and were heard: in the same year, the 28-mm mounts were replaced with quad 40-mm anti-aircraft mounts from Bofors, and the number of 20-mm machine guns was increased to twelve.

    "Pensacola" received quad 40-mm MZA only in 1943. Prior to that, the only MZA on it were "Chicago pianos", the number of which in 1942 increased to four.
    In 1941, Chrysler was just beginning to try to bring the KD and TD purchased from the Swedes into line with American mass production. The first 40-mm machine guns went to the Navy only in 1942.
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 September 2020 09: 45
    +5
    In fact, if in theory, then these ships should have become pioneers of the heavy cruiser class, play the role of training ships, that is, no one took them seriously.

    The problem is that in theory Pepsi Colas were lungs cruisers. smile
    They became heavy only in July 1931, a year and a half after Salt Lake City was handed over to the Navy. And then, only because of their 8 ", did not fit into 6 "standard KRL.
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 29 September 2020 10: 14
    +6
    The United States faced a difficult choice: Great Britain, which still ruled the seas, could instantly move from the category of allies to the category of opponents, and not potential ones. And also on the horizon loomed Japan, which, as it were, remained extremely unhappy with the outcome of the First World War and was developing its own fleet with might and main.
    And the Hawkins imposed as a standard did not suit the Americans very much. It has already become clear that 10 tons will not fit normal armor and normal armament from 000-mm guns.

    The author once again fantasizes and misinforms.
    To begin with, the British proposal for heavy cruisers completely suited the Americans, since they coincided with their performance characteristics for a cruiser intended for the Pacific theater, and the Japanese, as they corresponded to the Furutaka-class cruisers laid down in 1922.
    As for Great Britain's transition to the category of opponents of the United States, after the conclusion at the Washington Conference instead of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902, the Treaty of Four Powers (the United States, France, Great Britain and Japan), the likelihood of war between Britain and the United States in both countries was considered exclusively theoretical and neither in what plans was not taken into account.
  7. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 29 September 2020 11: 59
    +1
    Thank you so much for the article, Roman!
    All the same, well done American engineers. Blinded a suitable ship.
    As I already wrote, for a cruiser, armor against its main caliber is not at all necessary. This is for battleships with their notorious ZSM (and that is nonsense, if we take American heavy armor-piercing shells). We protect the cruiser only from the fire of a weaker enemy, otherwise it will lose its main qualities - firepower, speed and autonomy. And in an artillery duel with an equal opponent, the main role is played by the rate of fire and perfection of the SUAO.
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 29 September 2020 13: 05
    +5
    Artillery fire control radar FC
    FC is not a designation for the type of radar, it is a designation for the fire control system of naval guns as such - fire-control.
    On the cruisers Pensacola and Salt Lake City, Mark 3 and Mark 4 were used as such.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 29 September 2020 13: 06
      +4

      Mark 3 Medium Wave Fire Control for Main Batteries.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 29 September 2020 17: 25
        +2
        two SG anti-aircraft fire control radars.
        SG are not anti-aircraft fire control radars. It's a search radar, like SK.
        The Mark 4 radar was used to control the anti-aircraft fire.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 29 September 2020 18: 28
          +1
          In 1940, an experimental CXAM radar was installed on Pensacola. During the war, both ships received an FC artillery fire control radar, an SK search radar and two SG anti-aircraft fire control radars.
          To finally understand the radar equipment of cruisers, we will once again use the October 1943 photo from the article.

          The antennas are clearly visible in the photo.
          Left - Salt Lake City. The cruiser received in 1943 the SC search radar (one), the SG search radar (one), the Mark 3 main battery fire control radar (one) and the Mark 4 universal and anti-aircraft artillery fire control radar (one), so he finished service with them ...
          In the middle is USS Pensacola. In 1940, the cruiser was equipped with a serial search radar CXAM. The antenna of this radar is clearly visible at the top of the foremast.
          In 1943, the SK search radar (one), the SG search radar (one), the Mark 3 main battery fire control radar (one) and the Mark 4 universal and anti-aircraft artillery fire control radar (one) were additionally installed.
          Nothing else from the radar was installed on the ship.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 29 September 2020 19: 51
            +3
            This is what the Radar Room looked like.

            On the right is the SG panel, on the left is the SK.
  9. Selevc
    Selevc 29 September 2020 13: 44
    +9
    As for the Pensacola, one torpedo hitting the side near the mainmast caused flooding of the aft engine room, oil leakage from the tanks, severe fire, and later - explosion of part of the ammunition in the main caliber turret No. 3.
    But the crew coped with it, and the ship fell not to the bottom, but under repair, which lasted until October 1943 ..

    What else do you want from a cruiser ??? Bismarck was knocked out of action one of the rudders and this mountain of the best Krupp steel with sides 30 cm thick of steel lies at the bottom - and here it is just a miracle in the performance of the cruiser "without armor" !!!

    The United States once again proved the wisdom of the powers of the sea - they quickly built this cruising vinaigrette that famously fought the entire war and by the way also managed to show miracles of vitality. While the land power Germany built everything as it should and as it should be, and only perhaps in the use of submarines has achieved success, but otherwise everything is very doubtful.
    1. unknown
      unknown 3 October 2020 08: 18
      0
      It may seem strange, but the United States is not a "sea power".
      From the point of view of geographic astrology, each country is tied to both the signs of the western and the signs of the eastern horoscope. We are interested in the binding to the eastern horoscope, since it is the annual sign that is responsible for the type of thinking. There are only two "water" signs. Rat and Monkey. The rest are "land".
      The Rat is Great Britain. Monkey - Japan.
      Indeed, "sea" countries: pirate formations, geographically cut off from the mainland, offshore zones, pumped up with money, and who knows what they think of themselves. Unbeknownst - many modern, "not blinkered" researchers have come to the conclusion that the entire so-called "ancient, medieval and modern history" fully fits into the so-called "nineteenth century".
      The USA is a "land" country, like Germany. They have one sign - the Bull. Russia - Horse. Italy - Dragon. France - Goat. Spain - Pig. China - Tiger.
  10. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 30 September 2020 14: 56
    0
    Quote: Selevc
    What else do you want from a cruiser ??? Bismarck was knocked out of action one of the rudders and this mountain of the best Krupp steel with sides 30 cm thick of steel lies at the bottom - and here it is just a miracle in the performance of the cruiser "without armor" !!!

    The United States once again proved the wisdom of the powers of the sea - they quickly built this cruising vinaigrette that famously fought the entire war and by the way also managed to show miracles of vitality. While the land power Germany built everything as it should and as it should be, and only perhaps in the use of submarines has achieved success, but otherwise everything is very doubtful.

    1. Bismarck was pursued by more than half of the British fleet, with battleships and aircraft carriers. And the American cruisers overwhelmed the Japanese destroyers.
    2. Miracles of survivability - this is when the cruiser did not sink after being hit by one torpedo. Do you know a cruiser in World War II that was sunk by one torpedo or mine?
    3. Germany made strategic mistakes on land, in the air and at sea - but it was not only successful with submarines. Their auxiliary cruisers fought well, as did torpedo boats, minesweepers and mine loaders. The battleship Scharnhorst also fought well - it managed to drown, among other things, an aircraft carrier and pass through the Channel.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 September 2020 18: 13
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      2. Miracles of survivability - this is when the cruiser did not sink after being hit by one torpedo. Do you know a cruiser in World War II that was sunk by one torpedo or mine?

      For example "Nyad" or "Hermione" or "Alberto di Giussano" ...
  11. mgfly
    mgfly 1 October 2020 12: 19
    0
    All the same, beautiful ships, I got to know them thanks to the world of ships, but I liked them so much that now I am collecting salt lake city entirely)
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 2 October 2020 12: 56
      -1
      and I saw all the ships in NavyField and my favorite ship was the English Prince Wells
      with its mega-guns, speed and underload for the monstrous deck armor.