Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. Paradox-style cardboard compromise

72
I apologize for taking such a pause. It is not easy to find complete information, and even more difficult in our time with photographs. But in the near future I intend to make amends, fortunately, there is something.


If so, then we will return to France, at a time when the Americans were working on "Pensacola", which was discussed in the last publication.

Combat ships. Cruisers. Paradox-style cardboard compromise

As soon as the ships were hit by the Washington Agreement, the French responded. Very quickly, which was quite natural, because at that time France actually did not have cruisers. The most "fresh" were built in 1906, that is ... you understand. Armored / armored deck, past the war. In the 20s - not just funny.

Therefore, immediately after the signing of the Washington documents, the French naval general staff ordered the construction of new cruisers. Naturally, based on a displacement of 10 tons and 000 mm main guns.

But in the plans, these were not squadron ships that would work in conjunction with battleships or perform other functions. The new cruisers were destined for the role of fast but heavily armed scout scouts. As if hinted that when meeting with colleagues from the opposite camp, these cruisers will have an advantage that is fatal for the enemy.

The project of the first post-war cruisers "Duguet-Truin" was taken as a basis, which increased by 2 tons in displacement. However, from previous articles, we already know perfectly well that “we want” and “000 tons” are about nothing.

As a result, they decided to design two ships: one with the highest possible speed, to the detriment of protection, and the other with enhanced protection by reducing speed. The second is the future Suffren.


But according to the first project, everything immediately became very sad. We realized that Duge-Truin + 2000 tons is not enough for such a ship.

The new cruisers were to carry eight 203-mm main-caliber guns, four 100-mm anti-aircraft guns, as well as two 550-mm four-tube torpedo tubes and anti-submarine bombers.

It didn't work out, and I had to "cut it alive". Torpedo tubes and bombs were completely removed, instead of 100-mm very promising station wagons, 75-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed, a plus was the replacement of 40-mm licensed "pom-poms" with new anti-aircraft guns with a caliber of 37 mm.

And the speed could not be touched, it had to be 34 knots. So what was left for the designers? That's right, remove the armor. More precisely, they could not even lay it down properly, because 450 tons of armor on a ship of 10 tons of displacement - well, it's not even funny, but tragic. Let me remind you that the Italian "Trento", which I once criticized for the lack of armor, the weight of the armor was 000 tons. Twice as much. And the British "County" with its 880 tons and generally looked like a knight chained in steel.

No wonder the French sailors called the cruisers "cardboard". In this regard, they turned out to be even more "thin" than their Italian counterparts.
But, in general, the lack of booking - this was the scourge of all the first cruisers - "Washington" in all countries. As for our heroes, at first they were enrolled in light cruisers, and only after the London Agreement of 1930 prescribed the differences between the two classes of cruisers, the Duquesne suddenly became the first heavy cruisers.


They named the ships after historical personalities.


Abraham Duquesne, Marquis du Boucher, Vice Admiral of the French fleet - one of the greatest sea heroes of France, who fought his entire adult life, and, I must say, excellently.


Anne Hilarion Comte de Tourville is a student and companion of Duquesne.

Personalities are more than worthy, the only question is how worthy the ships were ...

So, what were these ships in terms of performance characteristics?


Displacement:
- standard: 10 160 t
- normal: 11 404 t
- full: 12 435 t

Dimensions:
- length: 185 m
- width: 19,1 m
- draft: 5,85 m

Power point:
4 TZA "Rateau-Bretagne", 8 boilers "Gtiyot - clu Temple" with a capacity of 120 hp

Speed:
34 node

Booking:
- box-shaped protection of cellars from 20 to 30 mm
- towers, barbets, wheelhouse - 30 mm

weaponry
- 4 x 2 guns М1924 203 mm;
- 8 x 1 anti-aircraft guns 75 mm М1924;
- 8 x 1 anti-aircraft guns 37 mm M1925;
- 6 x 2 Hotchkiss machine guns 13,2 mm;
- 2 x 3 550 mm torpedo tubes;
- 1 catapult,
- 2 seaplanes

Crew:
605 people
(the flagship has 637 people)

It turned out to be a rather strange ship, as you can see: on the one hand, it slightly (by 1 knot) surpassed the destroyers of that time in speed (Burrask issued 33 knots), on the other hand, the armor was like that of the destroyer, but a little thicker.

The initial assumption about the concept of its use as a scout capable of "hanging" enemy scouts looks a little self-confident. Reservation of 30 mm - this, sorry, will not protect even from the main caliber of destroyers (100-130 mm). Speed ​​... Yes, they hoped for it, but the subsequent experience of the war (especially among the Italians) showed that in vain.

Since the "Duguet-Truin" was taken as a model, the "Duquesne" also retained its semi-canopy design. In other countries, this concept was abandoned, and the French themselves subsequently ceased to build such cruisers. Still, the flush-deck concept was more profitable from the point of view of shipbuilders in terms of strength.

"Duquesne" looked like an ancestor. It's hard to say if this is good or bad. If France fought at sea ... Of course, it is unpleasant to find a light cruiser, and then suddenly realize that this is his relative with 203-mm guns.


Armor


A few words about booking, which in fact did not exist. Box-shaped protection of ammunition magazines. Armor sheets with a thickness of 30 mm on the sides and 20 mm on the "roof" and traverses. Tiller compartment - sheets 17 mm thick.

The towers and barbets were like the Duguet-Truin's, protected by double-layer armor. Tower 15 + 15 mm, barbet - 20 + 10 mm.

The conning tower also had two-layer armor of 20 + 10 mm. The upper deck was made of regular steel, 22 mm thick.

weaponry


Everything here is almost beautiful. The French engineers were staring at the British ships, so it turned out similar. Since the French did not have their own 203 mm guns until this moment, a 203-mm M1924 gun with a barrel length of 50 calibers was developed especially for the cruisers.

The gun turned out to be very simple, but therefore very reliable and with good characteristics. Two types of shells: armor-piercing weighing 123,1 kg and high-explosive fragmentation weighing 123,8 kg. The same weight provided the same ballistics of the projectile, which was useful in combat conditions, since it did not require additional zeroing when changing the type of projectile.

The projectile flew with a very good initial speed of 850 m / s at a distance of 31,5 km at an elevation angle of the trunks of 45 degrees. The range was even considered excessive, because the charge was reduced from 53 to 47 kg. The initial speed dropped to 820 m / s, and the range fell to 30 km.

At the very beginning of World War II, a new armor-piercing shell weighing 143 kg entered service.

In 1939, an innovation was introduced: a dye was added to the projectile charge to facilitate zeroing in the event that several ships were firing. At the Duquesne, the explosions were colored red, the shells of the Tourville were yellow.

The idea is very interesting, but not very simple to implement. In fact, the two ships had to produce two different ammunition sets, which was not very convenient. But if in battle both cruisers fired at one enemy ship, then this would undoubtedly give a good advantage.

The standard ammunition load was 150 rounds per barrel. The number of armor-piercing and HE shells could vary depending on the tasks assigned.


Artillery fire control was carried out from the KDP located on the foremast. For this, two rangefinders were installed on the site, with a base of 3 and 5 meters. The second, spare post, was in the conning tower. The central artillery post was located on the upper platform and was equipped with a 1924 model computer table and two auxiliary computers of the "aviso" type. On the elevated towers, 5-meter rangefinders were installed, with the help of which the crews could independently control the fire of the group of towers.

The anti-aircraft armament has increased in comparison with the "Duguet-Truin". Of course, "Duguet-Truin" criticized for the lack of such is not an indicator at all, but nevertheless. Compared to him, the Duquesne simply bristled with barrels.

Four 75 mm anti-aircraft guns were installed on the side on the first tier of the superstructure, as in the "D-T", and four more - on the boat deck.

The air defense of the near zone was 8 of the newest 37-mm M1925 semi-automatic anti-aircraft guns. These were very good guns, a projectile weighing 725 grams flew at a speed of 850 m / s, the rate of fire reached 40 rounds per minute, and the firing range was up to 7 m.

And, which is natural for that time, anti-aircraft weapons were not without Hotchkiss machine guns. There was little sense from them, but at first they installed four 8-mm M1914 machine guns on the ships, and in 1934, 4 coaxial 13,2-mm Hotchkiss M1931 machine guns appeared on the cruisers' poop. Large-caliber machine guns at the beginning of the war still posed at least a small, but a threat to aircraft. Subsequently, the machine guns were equipped with armored shields.

Torpedo armament consisted of two three-tube 550-mm torpedo tubes of the 1925T type, located on the upper deck between the tubes. In the superstructure between the vehicles there were 3 spare torpedoes and a reloading mechanism. Targeting vehicles and firing torpedoes could be carried out remotely from the conning tower.

In addition to torpedoes, the cruisers could take 15 depth charges weighing 35 kg. The French navy adopted a system of designating depth charges by the weight of the warhead. The total weight of a 35-kg depth charge was 52 kg.

Duquesne and Tourville became the first French cruisers to have aviation armament was part of the project. In general, the catapult for launching ship seaplanes was tested on Primoga, but it was there that it became clear that it was very important to place the catapult correctly. Ut is not the best place, the catapult interfered with the work of the aft group of the towers, and the planes were flooded during the rough seas.


Therefore, on "Duquesne" and "Tourville" the catapult was placed between the second tube and the mainmast. A 12-ton crane with a boom length of 12,3 m, which was attached to the base of the mainmast, was used to raise and lower the seaplanes into the water.

Cruisers could carry 2 seaplanes. The first in a combat position was placed on the catapult, the second on the boat deck between the pipes. Used seaplanes "Loire-Gourdou-Lesser" L-3, which soon replaced the float monoplane "Gourdou-Lesser" GL-810/811 / 812HY, and in April 1939, the cruisers received flying boats "Loire-130".


Power point


Eight boilers of the "Guyot-du Temple" type with a steam pressure of 20 atmospheres, four TZA type "Rato-Bretagne", each with a pair of forward and one reverse turbines. The rated power of each unit was 30 hp.
Both cruisers during the tests were unable to demonstrate outstanding results and only confirmed the design speed of 34 knots.

"Duquesne" issued 35,3 knots on a short segment, but was able to keep the declared speed of 34 knots for only 4 hours. "Tourville" is even worse: the maximum speed is 36,15 knots and only 33, 22 knots for 6 hours.


But in general, the cruisers were considered decent in terms of speed, because when fully loaded, they calmly developed 31 knots without forcing the turbines and could hold 30 knots for about a day at half the power of the power plants.

The Duken-class cruisers had good seaworthiness. It was believed that they were in no way inferior to the British cruisers of the "County" type. Due to the zygomatic keels, the "Duques" had a moderate roll and could keep the speed of 30 knots even with waves of 5 points.

The habitability of the cruisers was criticized. The forecastle design deprived the ships of many rooms, so the crew had a difficult time. In addition, the ventilation of the cockpits turned out to be unsatisfactory, which further complicated the life of the crew in the southern latitudes.

In general, the ships turned out to be pretty decent, if we close our eyes to the lack of armor. Therefore, when in the 30s ships of the next generation, more well protected, began to appear, the first heavy French cruisers began to become obsolete.

There was even a project to convert cruisers into aircraft carriers, but it did not receive proper implementation for many reasons.

The ships, quite naturally, have undergone a number of upgrades throughout their service.

At the end of 1943, catapults were dismantled from both cruisers and aircraft were removed. In March 1944, 4 37 mm anti-aircraft guns were replaced at Tourville with more efficient 40-mm Bofors assault rifles.

At the end of the war, both cruisers underwent modernization, during which torpedo tubes, main masts and rangefinder posts on the conning houses were dismantled. French-made anti-aircraft guns 37 mm were replaced by 8 "Bofors". There were plans to install quadruple Bofors on ships, but these plans were abandoned.

Instead, the cruisers bristled with the barrels of the 20-mm "Erlikonov", the "Duquesne" received 16, and the "Tourville" - 20 such submachine guns, which definitely brought the ships to a confident level in terms of air defense among classmates.

Combat service



Duquesne and Tourville began service in May 1928, combining testing with additional equipment installation. The ships made training trips around the world, visited the French colonies, and the Tourville sailed around the world in 1929. The nine-month cruise passed without a single breakdown of the mechanisms, which left the most favorable opinion about the new ships.

In November 1929, the 1st Light Division of the 1st Squadron was formed in Brest, which included the flagship Duquesne, Tourville and the newly commissioned Suffren. The division's cruiser was charged with training the naval academy's midshipmen.

With the beginning of the war, Tourville operated in the Mediterranean. During a patrol between Bizerte and Beirut in December 1939, the cruiser intercepted and inspected 32 ships, and in January-February 1940 transported a cargo of French gold from Toulon to Beirut.


Duquesne was based in Dakar, where it remained until April 1940, searching for German raiders in the Central Atlantic. However, in terms of results, it was not very good.

In May 1940, both cruisers were assigned to Formation X, which was to operate in the Mediterranean in conjunction with the British fleet. The ships took part in several operations, for example, the raid on the Dodecanese Islands. Further, the compound was based in Alexandria, where the crews learned about the truce.

Unlike other French naval bases, there were no battles between the French and the British in Alexandria. The ships were disarmed but remained under French control.

In 1942, the French colonies in North Africa went over to the side of the Allies, or rather, were annexed. The new administration of the territories began negotiations with the commander of the squadron in Alexandria, Admiral Godefroy, about the joining of his ships to the coalition, but negotiations dragged on until 1943.

In May 1943, the agreement was concluded, and the ships of the Godefroy squadron were again put into service. "Duquesne" and "Tourville" went to Dakar and together with "Suffren" made up 1 squadron of cruisers. The squadron fought the German blockade breakers in the Atlantic until early 1944. True, the frankly small range of action did not allow "Duquesne" and "Tourville" to operate effectively, and therefore they were often not involved in raids.

"Duquesne" participated in the Normandy landings, albeit in reserve.


At the end of the war, the cruisers participated in supporting the forces of the cleanup of the coast of France, and then left for repairs.

After the war, the cruisers returned to service, and then Indochina became the arena of their actions, in which events important for France developed. "Duquesne" and "Tourville" made two trips each, participated in the re-occupation of Tonkin.

In August 1947, "Duquesne" was put into reserve, then transferred to Algeria as a base ship for amphibious forces, and then in 1955 she was excluded from the fleet, after which it was sold for scrap in 1956.

From the end of 1948 the Tourville was used as a floating barracks in Brest. It was expelled from the fleet in 1961, and in 1963 it was finally dismantled for metal.

31 and 37 years old. Quite worthy.

Contrary to the opinion that today dominates the attitude of French heavy cruisers, the first heavy cruisers in France were created as well-armed and fast scouts. Reconnaissance, not protection of communications or actions as part of a squadron of battleships. Of course, the protection of trade communications was taken into account, but was not the main one. For this, the ships of the "Duquesne" class still did not have a normal reservation.

The first is always difficult. The first heavy cruisers in France had a good set of advantages: excellent seaworthiness, good speed, excellent main battery artillery. By the middle of the war, after modernization, the cruisers became carriers of quite decent air defense, which also could not but affect the combat capability of the cruisers.

But there were more than enough shortcomings. These cruisers turned out to be the weakest in terms of booking among all the heavy cruisers in the world. In addition, the range of the French cruisers was also the worst of all the participants in the Second World War.


But in general, all the first "Washington" cruisers were an absolute compromise between the displacement and the ability to equip the ship with everything you need. And the strengthening of some qualities had to be created due to the weakening (sometimes significant) of others.

But even in this case, "Duquesne" and "Tourville" could serve as an example of imbalance in characteristics.

Probably, these ships were very lucky that they did not take part in any normal naval battle during their long service life. The absence of a fight with at least an approximately equal enemy could significantly reduce the service life. But in this case, it turned out quite confidently.
Author:
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alien From
    Alien From 3 November 2020 06: 44
    +3
    Thanks to the author! Great article and photo!
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 November 2020 07: 03
    +8
    Probably, these ships were very lucky that they did not take part in any normal naval battle during their long service life.

    Well, here you can argue ...
    In any artillery battle at sea, other objective and subjective factors also interfere with the dispute between the performance characteristics of the combatants themselves: accuracy (training of the team and the senior artillery officer), quality of ammunition, weather conditions, elements of tactics. And, most importantly, in my opinion, it is called by us, mercantile beings and narrow-minded in terms of understanding the structure of the Universe, an element of chance. After all, it is important WHERE the shell hits and the consequences of this hit ...
    So if you start fantasizing, then, well, purely hypothetically, French cardboard boxes can go to the bottom even from a destroyer salvo, or they can send a booked classmate to Neptune with an incredible confluence of factors pleasant for them.
    Everything is relative wink
    By article. Will go for self-education victims of the exam, if they are not too lazy to read to the end.
    But in general, all the first "Washington" cruisers were an absolute compromise between the displacement and the ability to equip the ship with everything you need. And the strengthening of some qualities had to be created due to the weakening (sometimes significant) of others.

    This is not the first year I have been repeating this .... This applies to all "Washingtonians" in general ... request
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 3 November 2020 07: 09
      +6
      Good morning. hi
      ... an element of chance. After all, it is important WHERE the shell hits and the consequences of this hit ...

      Do you mean the notorious "golden bullet" as in the story with "Hood"?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 3 November 2020 11: 50
        +6
        hi And not only. Raid "Bismarck" can be said to have sentenced a shell from the "Wales", which damaged the fuel tanks. The shell that destroyed the maps in the Shokai navigator's cabin actually interrupted the operation to destroy American transports near Savo Island. This is just what is now remembered
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 3 November 2020 12: 15
          +4
          Well, Bismarck also condemned the radio message that Lutyens sent to headquarters. And so, yes, there are plenty of such cases. hi
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 3 November 2020 15: 01
            +2
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Well, Bismarck also condemned the radio message that Lutyens sent to headquarters. And so, yes, there are plenty of such cases. hi

            Nah smile Lutyens decided to return to Brest after a report of damage (fuel leak, nose trim coupled with a roll to port side) and the mistaken belief that the British were on the tail. The telegram was already on the way to Brest hi But the cancellation of the operation even before the radiogram, which, by the way, simply helped to find the Bismarck
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 3 November 2020 15: 16
              +4
              I meant direction finding.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 3 November 2020 15: 22
                +1
                I understood. But that was all later. smile
          2. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 17: 51
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Well, "Bismarck" also sentenced the radio message that Lutyens sent to headquarters.

            Let's just say ... Lutyens acted in accordance with the situation.
        2. La Peruse
          La Peruse 3 November 2020 12: 18
          0
          Yes, no, the torpedo from Sourdfish played a more important role, if with a punched tank Bismarck could simply return, then with a jammed rudder, you will not get far when driving cars. But there were opportunities to correct ... And even in reality, Bismarck in his deplorable state was discovered by accident. And if you take the Baltic Fleet of the Red Army, 43 years old, submarine ... Accident by accident ...
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 3 November 2020 15: 06
            0
            We are talking about the consequences of successful (or unsuccessful) hits. The torpedo was already a consequence, and the reason for the cancellation of the raid by Lutyens was the hit of a shell in tanks and a fuel leak smile
            1. Selevc
              Selevc 3 November 2020 16: 23
              -1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              We are talking about the consequences of successful (or unsuccessful) hits. The torpedo was already a consequence, and the reason for the cancellation of the raid by Lutyens was the hit of a shell in tanks and a fuel leak

              The Bismarck Raid is generally one of the greatest examples of stupidity and waste in military history !!! After all, the Fuhrer, for sure, during the launch of the Bismarck and during the naval exercises, reported reports like "This is a fortress on the water !!!", "This is an invulnerable ship !!!" and further in the same spirit ...

              And what has practice shown ??? The greatest German "naval fortress" stopped its combat mission after the very first volleys of the enemy !!! ))
              And here the point is not even whether Bismarck was lucky or not - the point is that the enemy shot accurately and knew in advance where to shoot - he knew Bismarck's vulnerabilities !!!
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 November 2020 16: 49
                +4
                Quote: Selevc
                And here the point is not even whether Bismarck was lucky or not - the point is that the enemy shot accurately and knew in advance where to shoot - he knew Bismarck's vulnerabilities !!!

                Hmm ... 3 shells hitting the Bismarck with 18 half-salvoes of the Prince (plus three volleys from the Y tower) is undoubtedly extremely accurate fire. smile
                Moreover, out of three hits, only one was full. The second shell, without exploding, pierced the German LK through and through, and the third was generally counted as a hit only for the fact that it went through the command boat and the catapult. smile

                What kind of accurate shooting can a ship be, which was actually sent to sea from the outfitting wall? PoW went into battle with the factory brigades on board (the ship's SUAO lived in battle only through the efforts of a brigade of adjusters who actually worked on the system), and his team fought more with the mechanisms of their ship than with the enemy. The PoW combat report for artillery reads as "a complete list of possible malfunctions" - towers, guns and feed mechanisms were constantly and extremely varied.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 17: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  The second shell, without exploding, pierced the German LK through and through,

                  In fact, apparently, it did explode "at the exit": the exit hole had either a diameter or an area of ​​one and a half meters. In addition, if there was no rupture, the tank would not have broken through.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 3 November 2020 19: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                    In fact, apparently, it did explode "at the exit": the exit hole had either a diameter or an area of ​​one and a half meters. In addition, if there was no rupture, the tank would not have broken through.

                    Thanks for the clarification. hi
                    EMNIP, the hit of this projectile also led to the flooding of the fuel pump room in the bow group of fuel tanks.
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 19: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      EMNIP, the hit of this projectile also led to the flooding of the fuel pump room in the bow group of fuel tanks.

                      That's right ... The bilge pump room was located on the lower platform of the XX compartment.
                      Actually, its flooding largely influenced the further course of events, irrespective of the damage to the fuel tanks: "Bismarck" sat down like a pig, the speed dropped ...
                  2. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 3 November 2020 23: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                    In fact, apparently, it did explode "at the exit": the exit hole had either a diameter or an area of ​​one and a half meters. In addition, if there was no rupture, the tank would not have broken through.

                    No. It was this shell that did not explode. You and I, EMNIP, have already somehow found out whether a shell that got into the compartment with turbine generators exploded and came to the conclusion that it exploded. smile
                    So, the damage from the hit of the projectile in the nose is described too far and it is directly indicated that the projectile did not explode.
                    The first was a 356-mm projectile hitting a 60-mm anti-fragmentation belt in the nose in compartment XXI (two compartments in front of the bow armored traverse). The projectile did not explode, but went right through and formed two holes with a diameter of 60 mm in the 850-mm belt, slightly above the waterline, but below the level of the bow breaker. On the way, the projectile pierced the transverse bulkhead between compartments XXI and XX, which began to fill with water (in the end, it was accepted from 1000 to 2000 tons). Initially, the water inflow was small and the emergency party proposed to reduce the speed and flood the tanks to increase the trim at the stern. These measures were supposed to raise the hole above the nasal wave, which would make it possible to close it. However, tactical considerations did not allow Admiral Lutiens to reduce the speed to less than 28 knots, as a result of which the water pressure began to increase damage. Another unpleasant consequence of the hit was the break in the pipeline leading to the bow fuel tanks. The front sump pump and oil pump are under water. About 1000 tons of oil in the bow compartments were cut off from the ship's fuel system, this oil began to seep overboard through the punctured pipeline, and the tanks were partially filled with water. The ship received a 2 ° trim to the bow and a slight roll to the port side.

                    After the end of the battle, the emergency party tried to limit the flow of water. But the splinter belt could not be repaired without stopping the ship. It also turned out that the pumps in compartment XXII cannot cope with the water flow, and the manifolds in the fuel lines are flooded and do not work. The emergency party tried to pump out fuel from compartments XXI and XXII through hoses bypassing flooded pumps and pipelines, but these attempts were unsuccessful. To prevent further damage to the hull by the pressure of water through the holes, the divers began to seal them with mats from the inside. To complete this operation, the speed was reduced to 22 knots, but the water flow decreased slightly.

                    hi
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 10: 46
                      +1
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      It was this shell that did not explode.

                      The rescued Germans think differently ...
                      From the British Interrogation of Survivors:
                      One shell struck forward, entering the port side of Section XXI, at the height of the battery deck, above the water-line, and exploded on the starboard side, within the ship, at the level of the middle platform deck, making a hole in the ship's side 1-1 / 2 meters in diameter under water. The explosion damaged bulkheads between Sections XX and XXI and Section XXI and XXII, and accordingly the three forward sections were flooded to a depth of 1 meter above the battery deck, the fore part of the ship sinking two or three meters.
                      1. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 4 November 2020 11: 17
                        0
                        How many people, so many opinions. I quoted a quote from a reference resource on the German Navy. The person lives in Germany and has access to German data. The British brought the data of those rescued from the battleship. The question is - were there people directly involved in eliminating the consequences of the hit? Or are these the opinions of those who heard what happened there and then? I personally think that during the transmission of the radiogram about the damage, Lutyens was better informed than those who were rescued, for example from other posts, than those involved in eliminating the hit. And if this resource gives an opinion that the shell did not explode, then I believe that it did not explode. You know as well as I that in questions about a German ship it is better to take information from German, from English from English, etc. ... With y, hi
                      2. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 11: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        How many people, so many opinions. I quoted a quote from a reference resource on the German Navy. The person lives in Germany and has access to German data.

                        This is a quote from Patyanin-Malov's work on the Bismarcs, so this is not at all the primary source. :) I can make a screen, but I hope you will take my word for it.
                        I know what kind of site you are: the guy is a talented collector of information, but there are no revelations for people "in the subject" there.

                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        The question is - were there people directly involved in eliminating the consequences of the hit? Or are these the opinions of those who heard what happened there and then?

                        The question is certainly interesting, but it is necessary to sort out the list of those who were saved ...
                        But the description of the damage from the British is very detailed, you will not get this from the OBS agency.

                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        I personally think that during the transmission of the radiogram about the damage Lutyens was better informed

                        I can quote RDO Lutyens:
                        FT Uhrzeitgruppe 0801 an Gruppe Nord:
                        1. Ausfall E-Maschinenraum 4.
                        2. Kesselraum Bb. 2 macht Wasser, läßt sich halten. Wasser im Vorschiff.
                        3. Höchstfahrt 28 kn.
                        4. Dänemarkstraße 50 sm Treibminen. Feind EM 2-Geräte.
                        5. Absicht: Einlaufen St. Nazaire. Meeresgott Kreuzerkrieg. Keine Personalausfälle.
                        Flottenchef


                        A piece from the "long" radiogram on the morning of May 25th:
                        "Bismarck" zwo Treffer von "King George", davon einer durch Unterschießen Seitenpanzer Abt. 13 bis 14. Treffer Abt. 20 bis 21 minderte Geschwindigkeit und verursachte 1 Grad Tiefertauchung vorn und Ausfall Ölzellen.

                        So if Lutyens knew anything, he kept it to himself. To be on the safe side, I did not translate so as not to impose my interpretations, so to speak.
                      3. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 4 November 2020 12: 42
                        0
                        Ok, let's figure it out hi If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. smile
                      4. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 12: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        Ok, let's figure it out hi If I'm wrong, I apologize.

                        Yes, not fundamentally ... :)
                        Because of the situation itself, there will always be a place for discussion.
                        The trouble is that from the German side of the official information (only radiograms and semaphore from "Bismarck" to "Eugen") at least - the rest are all protocols of interrogations, memoirs, etc., that is, to some extent personal judgments.
                        The result of this is that some points have to be logically completed using indirect data. Naturally, the participants in the discussion may have disagreements ...
                      5. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 4 November 2020 18: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Because of the situation itself, there will always be a place for discussion

                        Totally agree with you.
                        In the excerpts from the radiograms you quoted, it is said about two hits, but specifically about one exploding shell that landed in the turbo generator compartment.
                        In the testimony of the prisoners it is said that a shell hitting the nose hit the port side, then broke through the bulkhead and exploded on the starboard side. If we assume that it exploded at the exit and the bulk of the fragments and the energy of the explosion went out, then a hole of 1-1,5 m2 is still allowed. It can be assumed that in the heat of battle, this explosion was interpreted as an unexploded shell due to small fragmentation damage. Therefore, Lutyens did not mention him as torn apart. Then the mention of it by Patyanin and Malov as non-explosive is quite acceptable. In Pechukonis and Davydov's mogography of the Bismarck type, it is said that this shell went right through the fuel tanks and made a hole at the junction of compartments 21 and 22 of the same area. in 1,5m2., but it is not said that it burst.
                        So I am inclined to believe that the shell caused unexploded damage to the fuel tanks. And if it exploded, then on board with minimal shrapnel consequences. Therefore, it is more often referred to as unexploded, in contrast to the third, which exploded inside the ship with a mass of consequences and shrapnel holes. But this is my personal opinion. But here, as you say, it is not fundamental, because in fact this shell was the beginning of the end of the "Bismarck"
                        Yours faithfully, hi
                        PS You are one of the few adequate commentators who are interesting to read smile
                      6. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 19: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        So I am inclined to believe that the shell caused unexploded damage to the fuel tanks.

                        The problem is that in the event of a "non-rupture", it is not clear how the inter-compartment bulkheads, the middle platform and the outer side under it were pierced.
                        The joke of humor is that the projectile passed over the armored deck.
                        Here is the semaphore for Prince Eugen:
                        0950
                        Winkspruch von Bismarck:
                        K [Kommandant] an K [Kommandant], Zu Ihrer Benachrichtigung. Ich habe 2 schwere Treffer erhalten. Einen in Abt. XIII-XIV. Hierdurch Ausfall E-Werk 4, Kesselraum Bb. macht Wasser, das gehalten werden kann. Zweiter Treffer Abt. XX-XXI im Vorschiff. Einschuß an Bb, Ausschuß an Stb. über Panzerdeck. Dritter Treffer durch ein Boot, ohne Belang. Sonst geht es mir gut. 5 Leichtverwundete.

                        In general, you can argue endlessly ... :)

                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        But here, as you say, it is not fundamental, because in fact this shell was the beginning of the end of the "Bismarck"

                        Also a debatable question ... laughing

                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        PS You are one of the few adequate commentators who are interesting to read

                        Thanks for your kind words. hi
                      7. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 4 November 2020 19: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        In general, you can argue endlessly ... :)

                        Well Duc it says so - entered from the starboard side, left the left ... Through the armored deck ... Consider the armored deck. It was outside the citadel, at the bow end - 20mm. I think for a large-caliber armor-piercing (or semi-armor-piercing) shell, this is not an obstacle.
                        Outside the citadel, the main deck was not armored, but in the stern below the waterline there was a special armored intermediate deck that protected the ship's steering. It stretched from the aft traverse of the citadel to the traverse of the tiller compartment (between splines 10,5 and 32) and had a complex shape, but the thickness of the plates was uniform - 110 mm. In the bow, the main deck outside the citadel was also not armored, but the upper platform from the bow traverse to the 215th frame was armored with 20-mm plates

                        smile drinks
                      8. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 20: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        Well Duc it says so - entered from the starboard side, left the left ... Through the armored deck ...

                        For some reason I always thought that "über" translates as "above" or "above", and not "through" ... :)
                      9. Rurikovich
                        Rurikovich 4 November 2020 20: 20
                        +1
                        laughing It doesn't matter. Most likely, 60mm protection of the extremities with bulkheads is not an obstacle for a 720kg armor-piercing projectile smile
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        For some reason I always thought

                        Alas, translated by context. My relative with knowledge of German falls into a stupor when translating everything that contains technical terms laughing So here I will not argue with you.
                        request
                        But I think that this discourse is time to end drinks hi It was nice to talk smile
                      10. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 20: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        It doesn't matter. Most likely, 60mm protection of the extremities with bulkheads is not an obstacle for a 720kg armor-piercing projectile

                        You can't argue with that ...

                        Quote: Rurikovich
                        But I think it's time to finish this discourse drinks hi It was nice to talk

                        drinks
  • Selevc
    Selevc 3 November 2020 18: 22
    -3
    quote] What kind of accurate shooting can a ship that was sent to sea actually from the outfitting wall be? [/ quote] To listen to you, a team of painters and plasterers fought with the best battleship !!! Well, fairy tales !!! And this is about the world's # 1 sea power !!! In fact, the Prince of Wales was launched back in '39 - and entered service in March '41 - and in Britain the term "entered service" means the complete combat readiness of the ship and not some kind of floating repair !! ! The British nation is extremely meticulous and scrupulous about the little things and I will never believe that they did not bring to mind the ship that was sent to the general battle with the German squadron.

    The Fritz began to design their pocket battleships in the early 20s - they built in the late 20s and all the 30s. British intelligence (as you know, the strongest on the continent) knew everything about the German battleships even at the stage of their design !!! Naturally, the British knew all the vulnerabilities of the German battleships - and beat them there.

    Everyone knows the famous video of the launch of the Bismarck in which Hitler shines with happiness. This video has probably been watched dozens of times by the entire Wehrmacht in full force - because this is a propaganda advertisement for the best weapons in the world. But then the war broke out and somehow everything went completely wrong - one battleship was flooded by themselves simply being led to the British misinformation, the other actually flooded a plywood low-speed biplane airplane !!! I think that Hitler was not counting on such "victories" from his sea wunder-waffles !!!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 18: 39
      +4
      Quote: Selevc
      and in Britain the term "put into operation" means the complete combat readiness of the ship and not some kind of floating repair !!!

      For enlightenment I advise you to read "Gunnery appendix to narrative of operations against" Bismarck " and in particular its section REPORT ON EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED IN 14in TURRETS 23rd TO 25th MAY

      Quote: Selevc
      Naturally, the British knew all the vulnerabilities of the German battleships - and beat them there.

      What are you talking about now?

      Quote: Selevc
      one battleship was sunk by themselves simply by behaving in a British misinformation

      A living legend ...

      Quote: Selevc
      another actually flooded a plywood low-speed biplane plane !!!

      Sheer bad luck, like the British with the Hood.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 4 November 2020 11: 14
        -2
        What are you talking about now?
        And you do not understand the elementary thing that if a battleship gets hit by a torpedo in the steering wheels, then probably the British torpedo bombers were aiming there!
        A living legend ...
        No legend - an elementary analysis of the opposing forces !!!
        Sheer bad luck, like the British with the Hood.
        A weapon that fails after the very first shots of the enemy must be recognized as bad - this applies to absolutely everything from a pistol and a knife to a bomber or battleship !!!

        And what does it mean luck or bad luck ??? You probably do not understand the basics of engineering design of weapons ??? !!! It was no secret to anyone why the Tirpitz and Bismarcks were designed - they were originally supposed to be designed for various extreme situations in clashes with British squadrons - with a very strong and outnumbered enemy !!! Battleships should have been designed initially so as to minimize the likelihood of luck and bad luck !!!
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 11: 24
          +3
          Quote: Selevc
          And you do not understand the elementary thing that if a battleship gets hit by a torpedo in the steering wheels, then probably the British torpedo bombers were aiming there!

          I haven't laughed like that for a long time ... :)

          Quote: Selevc
          No legend - an elementary analysis of the opposing forces !!!

          Read German documents - and you will be happy ...
          You will not find German ones, search the Internet Warship-2018, it has a good article by U. Jurens Under the Guns.

          Quote: Selevc
          A weapon that fails after the very first shots of the enemy must be recognized as bad - this applies to absolutely everything from a pistol and a knife to a bomber or battleship !!!

          Excuse me, but what and where went out of order after the first shot?

          Quote: Selevc
          And what does luck or bad luck mean ??? You probably do not understand the basics of engineering design of weapons ??? !!!

          More question and exclamation marks ... More.

          Quote: Selevc
          It was no secret to anyone why the Tirpitz and Bismarcs were designed - they were originally supposed to be designed for various extreme situations in clashes with British squadrons - with a very strong and outnumbered enemy !!!

          Learn the materiel: initially the "bismarcs" were designed against the "dunkers", then with the advent of "cutwork" the project was corrected ...

          Quote: Selevc
          Battleships should have been designed initially so as to minimize the likelihood of luck and bad luck !!!

          Comrade, do you yourself know how to spell TTZ? ;)
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 November 2020 19: 43
      +5
      Quote: Selevc
      In fact, the Prince of Wales was launched back in '39 - and entered service in March '41 - and in Britain the term "entered service" means the complete combat readiness of the ship and not some kind of floating repair !! !

      Mwa-ha-ha ... in March 1941, PoW was put into operation under an abbreviated program - due to the incomplete readiness of artillery. At the time of commissioning, the work of the Vickers-Armstrong brigades continued on the ship.
      Moreover, due to the fact that during the construction process the LC was damaged during the bombing, at the time of official commissioning, they did not have time to complete part of the tests on it, since the shipyard was busy eliminating the damage, and the Admiralty demanded to push the LC out as soon as possible. Among the "missed" tests were air tests on watertight compartments, fuel system tests, full power tests, etc.
      Throughout April, PoW was setting up 4-gun turrets and calibrating the SUAO and PUAZO. As a result, the training of gunners was seriously curtailed. The last tower was accepted by the fleet only on April 27, 1941 - and only after that the normal training of gun crews began.
      On May 8, 1941, the power plant was finally tested at full power.
      And only on May 21, 1941, the ship reported full readiness. Formally, since the training of the team lasted less than 2 months, and 80% of the personnel were recruits. The funniest thing is that even after "full readiness" there were about 100 Vickers-Armstrong specialists on board, who were involved in the elimination of problems with the GC and SUAO (formally accepted by the fleet). For comparison, the training course for the Bismarck crew lasted 5 months. And it was a full course, not fragmentary exercises between repairs and another breakdown.
      On May 22, 1941, PoW set out on its first military campaign with the Hood. The new LC went into battle with the factory specialists on board.
      Quote: Selevc
      The British are a nation extremely meticulous and scrupulous about the little things and I will never believe that they did not bring to mind the ship that was sent to the general battle with the German squadron.

      In 18 half-salps, PoW was supposed to fire 74 shells. But the guns were able to fire only 55 times. At some moments of the battle, the ship had only 2 active guns. These are the pies with kittens ...
      Quote: Selevc
      The Fritz began to design their pocket battleships in the early 20s - they built in the late 20s and all the 30s.

      What does the Panzerschiff have to do with the Bismarck?
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 21: 02
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For comparison, the training course for the Bismarck crew lasted 5 months.

        From September 40th to May 41st, there is still more time, but even according to Baron's recollections, the training program was not fully completed.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 November 2020 16: 26
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig

          From September 40th to May 41st, there is still more time, but even according to Baron's recollections, the training program was not fully completed.

          So "Bismarck" was also handed over unfinished, although not as much as PoW. Two 10,5-m rangefinders and a bow group of SZA were installed until November 1940. And the LK never received aft "swinging pots" - they had to install army commando-gerats.
          Plus, the entire February 1941, the ship spent in Hamburg at the wall - instead of the planned exercises and tests in the Baltic.
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 5 November 2020 18: 05
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So "Bismarck" was also handed over unfinished, although not so much

          There is ...
          But you can still train the crew ...
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 3 November 2020 15: 16
    +1
    How can I say ... Algerie came out very balanced for the Franks.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 3 November 2020 15: 24
      +2
      Bug fixes and smart design. The author's article about "Algeria" has already been smile
  • Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 4 November 2020 22: 16
    -1
    Quote: Rurikovich
    wink
    By article. Will go for self-education victims of the exam, if they are not too lazy to read to the end.

    I don't know, maybe I'm such a bore ... But ... I'm reading an article, I wonder? In general - yes, interesting. But the question arises - why the French? Earlier the article was devoted to Italians. Next will be the Naglo-Saxons? Germans? And the history of the creation of the Russian Navy and the Soviet Navy is not at all interesting? No, I understand, the author writes about what is closer to him and not for me to indicate the topic. But still...
    Personally, Russian history is closer to me. And the history of the construction of warships in our fleet as well.
  • alekc75
    alekc75 3 November 2020 08: 11
    -6
    author from where in 30 years bombers ????? you lie !!!!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 November 2020 09: 49
      +8
      Quote: alekc75
      author from where in 30 years bombers ????? you lie !!!!

      Actually, not in the 30s, but in the 20s:
      Already on July 6, 1922, the Naval General Staff (Etat-Major General) issued an assignment for the design of new ships in accordance with the maximum permitted characteristics - 10 tonnes of displacement and 000-mm artillery of the main caliber. Unlike the British counterparts (type "County"), created as the defenders of trade, the first French "eight-inch" cruisers continued the line of development of scouts and were intended to solve the following tasks:
      - long-range (strategic) reconnaissance in the interests of the linear fleet;
      - maintaining contact with the enemy;
      - support for light forces, submarines, patrol ships, convoy escorts;
      - the fight against ships that threaten French sea communications;
      - use as high-speed military transports on the line between France and North Africa;
      - flag demonstration.

      In this regard, MGSH put forward the following requirements for the project:
      - eight 203-mm guns in three or four turrets with light protection (150 rounds per gun);
      - four 100-mm anti-aircraft guns (500 rounds per gun);
      - two four-pipe 550-mm torpedo tubes with 4 spare torpedoes;
      - four 240-mm anti-submarine bombardment Thornycroft;
      - cruising range 5000 miles with 15-knot speed ..
      © Sergey Patyanin. French cruisers of the Second World War. Part 2: Heavy cruisers of the "Duquesne" class.
      1. alekc75
        alekc75 3 November 2020 09: 52
        -4
        what design ???
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 November 2020 09: 58
          +8
          Quote: alekc75
          what design ???

          Picture from the description of 1918:

          The Thornycroft bombers went to the navy in August 1917. The Type D depth charge firing range was 27 m.
          1. alekc75
            alekc75 3 November 2020 10: 02
            -1
            thanks, but everyone had these "barrels" -dumping from the stern
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 November 2020 10: 14
              +7
              Quote: alekc75
              thanks, but everyone had these "barrels" -dumping from the stern

              The fact of the matter is that this is not a discharge from the stern.
              Thornycroft's bomber made it possible not to drop GBs only behind the stern, but to throw them to the left and right of the ship 27 meters from the side. Thus, increasing the strip "processed" by the GB and reducing the requirements for the accuracy of the ship's exit above the submarine.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 3 November 2020 22: 02
                0
                Was the sinking speed of the GB from a bomb thrower not higher than when simply dropping from the stern? Or is it an insignificant advantage?
              2. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 3 November 2020 22: 49
                0
                Eerie construction .. And 27 meters in the water is about nothing. God forbid it doesn’t reach half of it, and it will tear the board itself into the British flag.
              3. hohol95
                hohol95 4 November 2020 00: 34
                -1
                So they were not applied. Not tested.
                Anti-submarine bombers Fairlie Mortar and Thornycroft Mortar
                VO Ryabov Kirill
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 5 November 2020 13: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  So they were not applied. Not tested.
                  Anti-submarine bombers Fairlie Mortar and Thornycroft Mortar
                  VO Ryabov Kirill

                  These are other bombers - of the next war.
                  The WWI-era Thornycroft bomb was produced and was in service. But the pace of production was slow. The British turned to the United States for help, in response, the Yankees said that the design of the British bomb was overcomplicated - and developed their own Y-gun double-barreled bomb (974 pieces were produced).
            2. hohol95
              hohol95 4 November 2020 00: 31
              0
              There were also "Hedgehogs" -
              The Hedgehog bomb (English Hedgehog - hedgehog), in the Soviet classification, the Mk 10 multi-barrel bomb launcher "Hedgehog" is a British anti-submarine bomb that was used during World War II on almost all ships of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, as well as on some ships of the Navy THE USSR.

      2. DrEng527
        DrEng527 3 November 2020 17: 02
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        four 240mm Thornycroft anti-submarine bombers;

        Thank you!
  • Romka47
    Romka47 3 November 2020 10: 30
    +2
    Thank you Roman! Great article! good
  • Undecim
    Undecim 3 November 2020 11: 27
    +7
    This time the author almost did not fantasize. So, on the little things.
    As a result, they decided to design two ships: one with the highest possible speed, to the detriment of protection, and the other with enhanced protection by reducing speed. The second is the future Suffren.
    The Duquesne class project and the Suffren class project were carried out sequentially. First, we "decided" to design the Duquesne class, then, taking this project as a basis, the Suffren class.
    instead of 100-mm very promising station wagons, 75-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed
    At the time of the design and construction of the Duquesne class cruisers, there were no "very promising station wagons" in the caliber of 100 mm in France. There was an M1925 deck gun, which was used to arm the classe Le Redoutable submarines, but they did not pull in the role of "promising station wagons" for cruisers. About "promising station wagons" on French ships can be said no earlier than 1930.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 3 November 2020 13: 32
    0
    Thank you so much for the interesting article, Roman!
    Whatever you say - the French are always ruined by grace. What a greyhound turned out!
    In principle, the error with protection could be completely corrected by reserving the ships. This would allow, taking into account the existing local booking, to bring security to the level of "La Galissione". The price is the loss of two nodes of the main passage and the excess of the contractual displacement by 1200 T.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 3 November 2020 15: 14
      +1
      This is what we are now reasoning after the fact. And then the admirals liked fast horses. You can understand the logic when you want everything at once and what it leads to from the comedy "Pentagon Wars" about the creation of the BMP "Bradley" wink smile And when there is a framework, then you still need to break your head, what to give preference to based on your wishes. This is how the Washingtonians were born request
      1. La Peruse
        La Peruse 3 November 2020 16: 08
        -1
        H'm ... The concept of fast ships with large cannons with almost complete absence of armor was advocated at the end of the 19th century. The same S.O. Makarov. Well, if you remember Fischer with his cats, Speed ​​is your armor !!! The Washingtonians are generally incomprehensible compromises, it is worth looking at all the Washington cruisers so they are all different, they are united by only one displacement.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 3 November 2020 17: 26
    -1
    "The French engineers were looking at the British ships with all their eyes, so it turned out similar." I did not read this nonsense further. !!
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 17: 38
    +5
    The idea is very interesting, but not very simple to implement. In fact, two ships had to produce two different ammunition sets, which was not very convenient.

    Author as usual ... :)
    The dye bag was hidden under a ballistic cap: so there were no difficulties in production.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 3 November 2020 19: 19
    0
    Most of all, me (excuse me ...). Interested in individual reverse turbines!
    Guns / shmushki, it's not interesting.
    Interesting "debauchery" in terms of the power plant.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 3 November 2020 19: 53
      +4
      Interested in individual reverse turbines!
      Once you are interested in them, download some simple book, such as P.P. Akimov.
      "Power Plants of Marine Ships" and learn a lot. Including the fact that the reverse is provided by a special turbine.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 19: 56
      +3
      Quote: Benzorez
      Interested in individual reverse turbines!

      Well ... this is just a seamless quote from "French Cruisers" by S. Patyanin.
      See what they write about this, for example, Jordan and Mulin - for weaklings ...
      If it is difficult with English, there is a Polish translation of Gerard Garier's works ... :)
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 3 November 2020 20: 02
        +3
        Are you joking?
        Do many workers of the first category in your SZ read in English / Polish / up to a heap of French at lunchtime the works of the above-mentioned comrades?
        Plus - a volume of Marx for the night under the pillow. After the shift.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 20: 06
          +2
          Quote: Benzorez
          Are you joking?
          Do many workers of the first category in your SZ read in English / Polish / up to a heap of French at lunchtime the works of the above-mentioned comrades?

          I actually talked about the author of this opus ... :)
          1. Petrol cutter
            Petrol cutter 3 November 2020 20: 26
            +2
            In that case, please accept my apologies.
            In general, many comrades ask the question - google yourself, find out yourself.
            No time to google. In fact of the matter.
            You came home from work. I got acquainted. And something like this ...
            Climbing the Internet and looking for the performance characteristics of a century-old turbine or steamer is for gourmets.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 3 November 2020 20: 29
              +4
              That is, you think that only idlers are engaged in information search?
              1. Petrol cutter
                Petrol cutter 3 November 2020 21: 38
                +1
                "So you think that only bums are engaged in information search?"
                You do not understand my words correctly.
                I explain on the fingers.
                Why is this site interesting to me?
                You can go over the articles / news (to a certain extent), I used to trust them. Delve into some topics / questions of interest to me. Read / often - comments are much more interesting than the article itself. Or they complement it.
                I didn’t know much, and I don’t know.
                Search the Internet for something without knowing that ...
                I'm looking for. But, for work. And forgive me - leisure. request
            2. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 3 November 2020 20: 53
              +2
              Quote: Benzorez
              In that case, please accept my apologies.

              No problem. I needed to formulate a thought more clearly. :)

              Quote: Benzorez
              In general, many comrades ask the question - google yourself, find out yourself.

              It happens, but, as a rule, such jokes concern well-known facts such as "what is WWII" (funny as it may seem, I came across similar questions several times on some resources).
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 3 November 2020 22: 54
    +2
    The article is generally not bad, thanks to the author!
    A little puzzled by this paragraph here:
    The habitability of the cruisers was criticized. The forecastle design deprived the ships of many rooms, so the crew had a difficult time.

    It seems to be the other way around; a forecastle forecastle was often used. What did the author mean here? What did the semi-canopy design deprive the crew?
  • Normal ok
    Normal ok 4 November 2020 19: 08
    -2
    The author writes: "... we will return to France, at a time when the Americans were working on Pensacola, which was discussed in the last publication."
    Scrolled through the entire section until mid-October and didn't find an article on Pensacola?
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 4 November 2020 19: 24
      0
      Quote: Normal ok
      Scrolled through the entire section until mid-October and didn't find an article on Pensacola?

      Here ...
      https://topwar.ru/175473-boevye-korabli-krejsera-rasstreljannyj-blin-kotoryj-ne-vyshel-komom.html
      1. Normal ok
        Normal ok 4 November 2020 19: 49
        -2
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Quote: Normal ok
        Scrolled through the entire section until mid-October and didn't find an article on Pensacola?

        Here ...
        https://topwar.ru/175473-boevye-korabli-krejsera-rasstreljannyj-blin-kotoryj-ne-vyshel-komom.html

        Thank you.
  • unknown
    unknown 5 November 2020 20: 50
    0
    The cruiser "Algeri" has been brought to perfection, within the specified standard displacement.
    Was very well balanced, nowhere else.
    Therefore, I did not have a displacement reserve at all.
    And the first pair had the largest displacement reserve among all the heavy French.
    As much as 454 tons. Taking into account the available booking, weighing 459 tons, it turns out quite well.
    Not bad for possible upgrades.
    Suffice it to recall that the first Italian pair carried a booking mass of 888 tons, and at the same time had a side belt 70 mm thick, and an armored deck up to 50 mm thick.
    And if you remember that both the Japanese and the British have repeatedly modernized their heavy cruisers and battleships, then the scope for modernization opens even wider.
    The KTU of the first French pair had a mass of 2137 tons, and the mass of the KTU "Algerie" - 1395 tons.
    Of course, given the layout and the presence of four shaft lines, the new KTU would have come out more difficult than that of Algeria, but the weight savings would still be significant.
    Which, in a compartment with a displacement reserve, could well be used to enhance the reservation.
    A similar operation could be carried out with cruisers of the Dugay-Truin class.
    But, it would be a desire ...
    In general, the saying that "Italians are much better at building ships than fighting on them" is actually about the French. The Italians, at least, fought.