Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. A charming misunderstanding

210
After the French heavy cruisers, I am drawn to something light and frivolous. And perhaps not to find a better object for applying diligence than this absurdity among all the fleets of the countries that participated in the Second World War.


Outright awkward


Not a cruiser. Not a destroyer leader. Don't understand what. Nevertheless, built by a decent series and fought from the heart - that's what the Atlanta-class cruiser is.


But let's start, as always, from the starting point. That is, not from the Washington agreement we mentioned earlier and the London agreement that followed it. So let those who developed and signed these documents be indignant there themselves, while we will talk about more serious things.

Restricting and tying themselves hand and foot, countries that wanted to have powerful fleets began to look for ways to circumvent the imposed restrictions almost immediately after signing. Nobody wanted to hurt themselves.

However, with what was drawn in London for a new class of light cruisers (8 tonnes of displacement and the main caliber of guns no more than 000 mm), you won't want to, but start experimenting.

In the USA, they began to work in two directions at once - a normal, but compact, universal light cruiser and a cruiser - the leader of destroyers.

Is it a destroyer leader?


It is the leader of the destroyers. Many called the Atlanta "air defense cruisers", but excuse me, which air defense ships in 1936? What are we talking about? These ships were designed specifically as destroyer leaders with all the attributes of this subclass.

Even conceptually: in fact, a destroyer, but the same as on steroids. Enlarged almost twice. The usual leader of the destroyers built by France and Italy exceeded the displacement of conventional destroyers by a maximum of 1–000 tons. Here the alignment was different, and in fact it was a full-fledged "London" cruiser, but with a very peculiar weaponry.

Combat ships. Cruisers. A charming misunderstanding

This ship was supposed to go along with the destroyers, at a speed of about 40 knots. And defend your ships from enemy destroyers. And also (again) to shoot enemy aircraft at medium distances.

And in 1936 it was decided to create cruisers of the Atlanta type. Precisely as the leading cruisers, with a displacement of 6-8 thousand tons and a speed of 40 knots.

For comparison: the same age (1934) destroyer of the "Farragut" class had a total displacement of 2 tons and went at a speed of 100 knots. So it’s not a leader, but a cruiser, this Atlanta.


weaponry


It was interesting with weapons. At first, they wanted to make a combined set of four 152-mm main caliber guns in two towers on the bow and stern. And place 127-mm universal mounts in the middle of the ship.

But in 1937 it was decided not to install 152 mm guns. And make all the weapons uniform. That is, 127 mm.

Controversial decision. But the American shipbuilders realized that even 8 tonnes of displacement (and actually it was planned to be less) could not meet all the requirements for this ship. And you have to sacrifice something.

All signatory countries donated. So the Americans in this case decided to sacrifice the main caliber. By the way, no one else did this.

They tried to implement the project with mixed weapons on Omaha-class cruisers. But even with a larger displacement than the Atlanta, nothing decent came of it.

And as a result, a cruiser with a displacement of 6 tons and with the main caliber from the destroyer came out.


However, 11 ships were built. And almost all of them took part in the naval battles of World War II.

What were these ships?

Reservation


Reservation was carried out according to the standard American scheme: vertical and horizontal protection. Vertical protection - armor belt 95 mm thick with 95 mm traverses. The belt covered the engine rooms and other mechanisms. Under the water was another armor belt, 95 mm thick at the top and up to 28 mm below, adjacent to the first. This belt covered the artillery cellars in the bow and stern.

The horizontal armor consisted of a 32 mm thick armor deck.

The turrets had an armor thickness of 25–32 mm. The conning tower on the ships was 62,5 mm thick.

In general, it is almost a cruiser. The mass of the armor was 8,9% of the displacement, which corresponded to the reservation level of American cruisers.

Power plant


Each cruiser was equipped with a two-shaft power plant, which consisted of two Westinghouse turbo-gear units and four oil-fired steam boilers.

Power plant capacity 75 liters. from. Maximum speed 000 knots. And the greatest cruising range is 32,5 miles at a speed of 8 knots and a fuel reserve of 500 tons of oil.

Crew


The peacetime staff was 623 people. According to the wartime staff - 820 people.

weaponry



The armament in accordance with the project was the same as that of the American destroyers: universal 127-mm guns, anti-aircraft guns and torpedo tubes.

Artillery armament consisted of sixteen 127-mm universal guns, located in eight two-gun turret mounts. Three towers were placed in a linearly elevated position on the bow and in the stern, two more - in the middle part along the sides of the ship.


This set looked very frightening. And in theory - woe to that destroyer, which would have turned up under the guns. They would have perforated it in full, but ...

The “but” was that these installations (how to put it mildly) did not have the proper level of impact on the enemy ships. Moreover, it was impossible to single out what exactly was badly invented or done. Here, rather, everything should have been assessed comprehensively.


In general, the 127 mm guns were frankly weak. The problem was the ammunition, which did not have the required power. Ballistics, range and accuracy suffered. The fact that, with automatic supply of ammunition, the guns, according to the plan, were supposed to have a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute, and some unique destroyers on the destroyers, when it got hot, easily gave 20-21, did not save. Statistics say that in order to knock out one plane, the gun had to fire about a thousand shots.

It turned out that the rapid-fire guns were very "so-so" in terms of accuracy and range. Alas, this was not their only drawback. Of course, the 127-mm projectile was inferior in performance to its 152-mm counterpart, but who knows how much! It is believed that the American 152-mm projectile was twice as good as its 127-mm counterpart in penetration and effect.

And third. Seven towers and 14 barrels - it looks very cool, but only on paper. In fact, it was very difficult to bring them to one target for maximum damage. These seven towers could fire at one target, but in a very limited sector, just under 60 degrees, and even going sideways to the enemy. Not the best position.

The shooting was controlled by the two newest at that time directors Mk37, which were put into service exactly in 1939. This was enough to fire at two targets. But for a larger number, alas.

In general, the versatile Atlanta caliber was really more suitable for shooting at air targets. But, as already mentioned, the cruisers were not created at all for this.

"Chicago Piano"



And now about what really had to work on airplanes. Initially, anti-aircraft armament was supposed to consist of 3-4 quad mounts with a caliber of 28 mm. The so-called "Chicago piano". But this installation was so heavy, cumbersome, unwieldy and unreliable that, as far as possible, they began to change them to twin 40-mm Bofors, which were produced under license in the United States.

Coaxial or quadruple Browning 12,7-mm machine guns were assumed as melee air defense systems. But instead of them, at the construction stage, they began to install single-barreled 20-mm anti-aircraft guns from "Erlikon".

In general, the anti-aircraft weapons of the cruisers, which were built in three series, differed from each other. If the armament of the first series consisted of 4x4x28 mm and 8x1x20 mm, then the cruisers of the third series were armed in this regard much richer: 6x4x40 mm + 4x2x40 mm + 8x2x20 mm.


Here, using the Atlanta as an example, it can be seen that towers 1 and 3 are installed for firing at air targets. And tower number 2 - on the surface.

Mine torpedo armament


Since the cruisers were supposed to operate together with the destroyers, why not launch torpedoes with them? Two four-tube torpedo tubes 533 mm on the sides. In general, given the fact that American designers did not spoil their cruisers (more precisely, they did not litter the decks) with torpedo tubes, it is precisely here that the idea can be traced that the Atlanta-class cruisers were considered by them to be more close to destroyers than to full-fledged cruisers.

As for the name "air defense cruiser", perhaps only ships of the third series, which entered service after the war, could claim this. Well, by the way, navy the US command began to classify these ships as Cruiser Light Anti-Aircraft, that is, an air defense cruiser only from March 1949.

Something special


If you evaluate the project, then there are mixed feelings. It is clear that the 30s after Washington and London are time of hesitation. But here, perhaps, the Americans have surpassed everyone, having built [/ b] something [/ b]. Is it really "Atlanta"?


This is not a destroyer leader / counter-destroyer. French Jaguars had a displacement of about 3 tons. Italian leaders - up to 000 tons. And here twice as many: displacement, weapons, people.

Cruiser? No. For a cruiser, armament and booking are frankly weak.

An air defense cruiser? Also no. The air defense ship clearly lacked fire control systems.

Plus, the declared speed of 40 knots turned out to be either a military cunning of a disinformation nature, or something else. But 32 knots is what these ships were rich in. For full interaction with destroyers (and the same "Farragut" issued 4 more nodes), this was clearly not enough.

And so it happened. Since something incomprehensible happened, then the military service at the ships was about in the same spirit.

Atlanta



In fact, the ship's combat service began in 1942. Then the ship became part of the TF16 task force, which was based on the aircraft carriers "Enterprise" and "Hornet".

It was as part of this formation that the cruiser took part in the Battle of Midway. Lavrov "Atlanta" then did not get. Since (according to the disposition) the cruiser was away from the main events. But the task was accomplished by the compound.

Further, the crew of the cruiser conducted exercises. Among other things, shooting in squares was practiced.

On July 29, 1942, Atlanta was transferred to Task Force TF61. And from August 7, she participated in the cover of both the landing in the Eastern Solomon Islands, and personally - the aircraft carrier "Enterprise".


On August 24, Atlanta entered the battle with enemy aircraft attacking the aircraft carrier. According to the report of the captain, 5 aircraft were shot down.

Further, the cruiser was transferred to the TF66 operational unit. He performed combat missions at Guadalcanal.

On November 12, 1942, the cruiser successfully repelled attacks from Japanese aircraft, shooting down two of them. Then there was the night phase of the battle. It deserves a separate description and discussion. We will only briefly dwell on the actions of Atlanta.

Unidentified floating object


The crew of the cruiser, after detecting the enemy with the help of the radar, was the first to visually come into contact with the destroyer "Akatsuki", illuminating it with searchlights and literally disfiguring it from a distance of over a mile. The Akatsuki is out of order. And, as the prisoners later showed, until the end of the battle, he did not commit any hostilities.

Further, the cruiser grappled with two destroyers, "Inazuma" and "Ikazuchi". He began firing at them with all 127-mm guns. But what happened next, we will consider in another article in more detail.

There was a detective история... An "unidentified light cruiser" took part in it. He opened artillery fire on the Atlanta.

Then a torpedo hit the cruiser. To the area of ​​the bow boiler room. From which the ship loses its speed and power supply. Cease fire from guns. And forced to switch to backup steering).

And the cherry on the cake was the identified heavy cruiser San Francisco. He slammed into Atlanta about two dozen 203-mm shells. One third of the crew and Rear Admiral Scott were killed.

The story is dark, I repeat. We will analyze it.
But in fact, "Atlanta" by joint efforts ditched their own. The crew (more precisely, its remnants) under the command of the excellent Captain Jenkins began to fight for survivability.

Fortunately, the minesweeper "Bobolink" approached and tried to tow the battered cruiser. During the towing, Japanese aircraft paid a visit. The heroic members of the Atlanta crew fought them off with the two remaining 127-mm guns and a pair of Oerlikons.

All this led to the fact that Jenkins ordered to leave the ship. And the Atlanta sank three miles from Cape Lunga.

Honestly earned five stars. And thanks to the president for his courage and unbending fighting spirit. The Atlanta crew was clearly very good.

Juneau



The fate of this cruiser was even shorter.

Juno took part in the rescue of the crew of the aircraft carrier Wasp, sunk by a Japanese submarine on September 15, 1942. Then he was assigned to task force TF17, in which he participated in the raid on the Shortlands Islands and in the battle off the Santa Cruz Islands. In early November 1942, as part of the TG62.4 formation, he covered the passage of convoys from Noumea to Guadalcanal.

In the night battle (in which the Atlanta was smashed) on November 12, 1942, he received a torpedo hit on the left side in the area of ​​the bow boiler room. With a large roll at low speed, he tried to leave the battlefield. But north of Guadalcanal received another torpedo in the area of ​​the bow cellars from the Japanese submarine I-26.

The ammunition detonated. And the cruiser sank within 20 seconds.

Only 10 people were saved.

San Diego



First took part in battles during the battle for the Solomon Islands. Participated in a raid on the Shortland Islands. In the battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. In the summer of 1943, he supported the landing in New Georgia.

He participated in the landing operation on the Gilbert Islands, the raid on Kwajallein, strikes against Japanese bases in the Marshall Islands and Truk, and the landing on Enewetok Atoll.

In 1944 he takes part in raids on Markus and Wake. Covers the landing at Saipan. And also in the battle in the Philippine Sea. And in the landings on Guam and Tinian. Also in strikes against Palau and Formosa.

16 battle stars.

"San Juan"


The cruiser joined Task Force TF18 in June 1942 in San Diego. Accompanying a convoy of troops to the Solomon Islands to land on Tulagi.

Participated in the battle at Santa Cruz. It was damaged by a bomb. It pierced through the stern. But it didn't explode.

Participated in the raid on Kwajallein, in the attacks on Palau, Yapa, Ulithi, and the landing in Hollandia. In the summer of 1944, he was in battle in the Philippine Sea. In December 1944 - in operations in the South China Sea, at Formosa, in attacks on the Philippines. In March 1945 - in strikes against Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

13 battle stars.


Oakland, Renault, Tucson and Flint


The cruisers of the second series "Oakland", "Renault", "Tucson" and "Flint" entered service in 1944. And they did not take part in the war as actively as the ships of the first series. However, the successfully completed operations were also on the account of these ships.

Results


Summing up all that has been said, it is worth saying that the ships, in principle, with a proper understanding of their tasks and capabilities, were suitable for use. Another thing is that for them there really was no well-thought-out niche, which is why they did not get effective use.

A cruiser that has an armoring and firepower issue is not a cruiser. A destroyer leader who is unable to catch up with his charges is not a leader. And, frankly, the American "Fletchers" and "Girings" were excellent and powerful destroyers that did not need nannies.

Only the third, post-war series "Atlanta" could be considered as air defense ships, because they already had 6 directors of management instead of two.

On the whole, Atlanta is a familiar product of compromises. Spawned by the Washington documents.
Author:
Articles from this series:

Combat ships. Such strange three musketeers and Chevalier Xu
Combat ships. Cruisers. Paradox-style cardboard compromise
Combat ships. Cruisers. Shot damn thing that didn't come out lumpy
Combat ships. Cruisers. A family of perfect pirates
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 1 December 2020 05: 34
    -4
    Yes, the ship is good for everyone except the main artillery caliber. It was necessary to mount 180 mm guns, and not suffer from nonsense, politely speaking! And the air defense weapons are more or less good, and the speed and seaworthiness are at the level. It looks like they built something to create more headaches for themselves, which they did well. ..
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 1 December 2020 06: 20
      +16
      Well, here at least people were looking for what could be done better and more efficiently, they also tried to break out of the framework of all sorts of agreements. And all ships were sunk, both balanced and unbalanced; built by agreements, or contrary to them. “Atlanta” won back and how they could bring the overall victory closer, good memory to them.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 1 December 2020 07: 48
        +8
        Thanks to the author, I read it.
        Personally, I, a person far from the Navy, liked the cruiser for its memorable "appearance".
        1. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 1 December 2020 11: 42
          +1
          In some ways, he remotely resembles the Japanese. Perhaps that's why they confused Atlanta.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon 1 December 2020 06: 28
      +3
      Yes, of course it was necessary, only there was no such weapon and it was impossible to put it.
      1. Thrifty
        Thrifty 1 December 2020 07: 22
        -3
        Cartalon - our Kirov-class cruisers have 180 mm guns. Didn't the USA have takigo guns in stock? ??
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 1 December 2020 08: 19
          +10
          You will compare the displacement and understand the difference (6000 versus 9500). Bigger gun, bigger and more massive tower. Try to shove an IS34 cannon into the T2, the same with cruisers. Kirov is an excellent light cruiser without any restrictions.
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 1 December 2020 08: 26
          +8
          Guns with a caliber of 180 mm have never stood on any American ship, which means they were not there, but not because they were not needed.
          As far as I know, with such a non-standard caliber, apart from our "light" cruisers of Project 26 ("Kirov"), there were only two Argentinean heavy cruisers of Italian construction Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo (1930 - ...), their main caliber was six 190 mm guns in three turrets.

          In the photo "Almirante Brown".
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 1 December 2020 08: 59
            -2
            Come on! EMNIP, 178-mm guns were on the Connecticuts and the last Idaho-type EBRs
            wink So this statement is debatable smile
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 1 December 2020 09: 03
              +7
              Well, so you remember to the heap casemate battleships, there was generally an amazing variety of all kinds of calibers. request
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 1 December 2020 10: 44
                +2
                Duc it was a weapon that no longer fired black powder laughing , but quite good art. And it stood in the casemates. Just the tendency in the development of ships did not imply variety. Some countries dabbled in non-standard calibers, but then from the desire to cram more into less (the same "Almirante Brown" or our "Kirov"). And so the weapon was yes smile
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 10: 59
            0
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Guns with a caliber of 180 mm have never stood on any American ship, which means they were not there, but not because they were not needed.

            Well, almost 180 were in principle.
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_7-45_mk2.php
            Quote: Sea Cat
            As far as I know, with such a non-standard caliber,

            No, curved calibers met. The first thing HMS Hawkins, of course, need to remember is the first of the Washingtonians.
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_75-45_mk6.php
          3. Constanty
            Constanty 1 December 2020 11: 46
            0
            Repeatedly (including here, in VO), heated arguments were given in favor of the fact that the Soviet cruisers of Project 26 were not heavy cruisers, since they did not have 203 mm guns and they had a smaller displacement. The Argentine ships Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo are proof that they were - heavy - smaller and with weaker artillery, but heavy.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 49
              +4
              These arguments are thrown by people who do not want to compare Soviet ships with normal MRT. And so the classification of contractual cruisers does not cause any doubts, everything above 6 "is KRT.
          4. unknown
            unknown 1 December 2020 19: 47
            +1
            And what about the cruisers whose characteristics were used as the standard of the Washington Treaty? Hawkins-class cruisers, 7 * 190 mm armament. The 190 mm guns of the Argentine cruisers were a forced version of the Hawkins guns.
        3. Alf
          Alf 1 December 2020 19: 45
          0
          Quote: Thrifty
          Cartalon - our Kirov-class cruisers have 180 mm guns. Didn't the USA have takigo guns in stock? ??

          There were 175 mm, but in the army, and the relationship between the US army and the navy deserves a separate sad story, and 155 and 203 reigned in the navy.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 20: 33
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Were 175 mm, but in the army

            Are you talking about WWII? I don’t remember. Is it an English 7,2 howitzer. If we are talking about coastal defense guns, then these are guns from battleships.
            1. Alf
              Alf 1 December 2020 21: 22
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: Alf
              Were 175 mm, but in the army

              Are you talking about WWII? I don’t remember. Is it an English 7,2 howitzer. If we are talking about coastal defense guns, then these are guns from battleships.

              Yes, you are right, confused with M107, but it is post-war.
    3. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 1 December 2020 08: 12
      +2
      Stupid Americans, it's so easy, instead of 127mm, put 180, well, like in T34 to push a 100mm cannon. In the USSR, they delivered 180 mm, but in a cruiser whose displacement is 1,5 times greater.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 01
        0
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        well, like in a T34, shove a 100 mm cannon.

        In fact, they shoved it, but the barrel turned out to be too long for, let's say, normal service.
        For this reason they refused.
        1. Alf
          Alf 1 December 2020 19: 48
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          well, like in a T34, shove a 100 mm cannon.

          In fact, they shoved it, but the barrel turned out to be too long for, let's say, normal service.
          For this reason they refused.

          The trunk turned out to be normal, but in the turret there was no room for the crew, taking into account the rollback, and the suspension could no longer withstand the high recoil.
        2. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 1 December 2020 21: 16
          +1
          Couldn't stuff it normally. When fired, the transmission and the chassis were out of order, and a disabled person turned out to be unable to even shoot on the move. It's the same with cruisers: a bigger gun, a heavier and larger turret, a larger hull is needed, etc.
    4. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 10: 54
      -1
      Quote: Thrifty
      It was necessary to mount 180 mm guns

      Have you fallen from the sky? The Americans did not have such a caliber at all, and in the 36th year, calibers higher than 155 mm for cruisers were completely prohibited.
      Quote: Thrifty
      And the air defense weapons are more or less good

      No.
      Quote: Thrifty
      Looks like they built something to create more headaches for themselves

      The Americans had serious problems with the light cruisers. Both at the TTZ level and at the implementation level.
    5. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 1 December 2020 11: 50
      +2
      Quote: "It was necessary to mount 180 mm guns, and not suffer from nonsense" - the London Maritime Agreement of 1930 did not order this to be done. More precisely, according to this agreement, the class of light cruisers (which did not fall under the contract limits on the total displacement of battleships and heavy cruisers) was limited to a displacement of 8000 tons and a gun caliber of no more than 155 mm.
      The 180 mm guns brought the ship automatically (according to the rules of the contract) to the class of heavy cruisers. In which the US Navy already had EMNIP in service with ships with a displacement of 9000 - 10000 tons and 203-mm main guns
    6. ecolog
      ecolog 2 December 2020 19: 25
      0
      Why 180mm? Strange caliber. Usually, after 152 were 203 mm. I believe that 152 is the last caliber that could be loaded manually at the very least. The Japanese, due to their slenderness, had 140 mm. At least in WWI.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 21: 18
        0
        Quote: ecolog
        Why 180mm? Strange caliber. Usually, after 152 were 203 mm.

        In the German fleet (Kaiser's) there were 170-mm
        British 190mm ("Elizabethan")
        And in the Soviet - 180-mm (Red Caucasus, pr. 26/26-bis)

        Quote: ecolog
        I believe that 152 is the last caliber that could be loaded manually at the very least.

        At the very least, you can manually charge 190-203 mm: examples are RYAV, PMV, WWII ...
    7. Alexandra
      Alexandra 2 December 2020 21: 16
      0
      In fact, we tried to copy these "Atlantes" ... in 1949-1950:

      http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/MLK_NB_1_98.pdf
  2. Potter
    Potter 1 December 2020 09: 25
    +15
    The article leaves a mixed feeling. There are a lot of controversial statements.
    1. there really wasn't a well-thought-out niche for them - why, these are cruisers for service with a squadron of large warships, battleships and aircraft carriers. Can. of course, to consider it as one of the tasks for them as service in the light forces detachment, that is, a qualitative strengthening of the destroyer detachment - but this is only one of the opportunities available to these ships.
    2.not found among all fleets of countries - Her Majesty's fleet, Dido-class cruisers. Built in almost the same number as the Atlantes. The main armament (according to the project and on the part of the ships in fact) 10 - 133mm universal guns in 5 towers, on the part 8 133-mm or 8 114mm. Originally built to serve on the latest battleships and aircraft carriers.
    3. I will not quote here, in my own words - the author is constantly pushing his vision that, as an air defense ship, cruisers like "Atlanta" were bad. And what about the general background of the fleets of that time? Yes, it was a ship with superpowers for air defense. The American universal 127-mm cannon was surprisingly well suited for arming ships of all classes. A single universal caliber of battleships, aircraft carriers, heavy and light cruisers with 152-mm main battery artillery, a universal destroyer caliber - what other fleet was all this in at the beginning of WWII? Only the main rivals in the Pacific theater of operations, the Japanese, to some extent. 16 127-mm barrels with 2 good directors at that time, with the presence of radars, and then radio fuses - this is power. The battle score of Atlanta in its last campaign - 7 shot down planes - speaks for itself.
    America, possessing the most powerful industry, could afford to build 4 types of cruisers in WWII - large ones with 305-mm cannons, heavy ones with 203-mm cannons, and light ones with 12 152mm cannons, such as Cleveland, and 12-16 127-mm cannons. ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 December 2020 11: 02
      +3
      Quote: Potter
      1. for them there really was no well-thought-out niche - why is it a cruiser for service with a squadron of large warships, battleships and aircraft carriers. Can. of course, to consider it as one of the tasks for them as service in the light forces detachment, that is, a qualitative strengthening of the destroyer detachment - but this is only one of the possibilities available to these ships.

      Or you can see them as replacements for the outdated "Omaha" - new scouts.
      Quote: Potter
      Yes, it was a ship with superpowers for air defense. The American universal 127-mm cannon was surprisingly well suited for arming ships of all classes.

      The problem is that the air defense is determined not only by the guns, but also by the CAO. Without a working SUAO, 127/38 was suitable only for work on horizontal bombers at medium altitudes (from the report of the commander of the AV Enterprise about the battles near the Solomon Islands).
      But with SUAO there was a problem - there was not enough control room. 16 barrels could only work for two purposes. For a scout working on surface targets, this was normal - 8 barrels may not even be enough to work on one EM. But for the KR air defense 2 KDP is not enough.

      In general, the Atlantes (together with the Clevelands) appeared only because the US military-industrial complex was not able to enter the universal 6 ". As a result, instead of the fleet wants in the form of a single 8 kt cruise ship with a main ship from the universal 6" it was necessary to make 2 cruise lines of the systems available in production: one in 8 kt with a universal GK (with a reduction in caliber to 5 "), and the other from 6". smile
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 13
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Or they can be seen as a replacement for Omaha scouts.

        Yes, Omaha's grandmothers got older and the Americans started throwing a little like Tom and Jerry.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The problem is that air defense is determined not only by guns, but also by the SUAO.

        Thank God everything was not there.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        appeared only because the US military-industrial complex could not in the universal 6 "

        Well, he got a universal 6 ", 6" / 47DP Mark 16, it still turned out to be some kind of nonsense, only 2 times more in VI.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        2 KRL from the systems available in production: one in 8 kt with a universal GK (with a decrease in caliber to 5 "), and the other - from 6"

        Tight. Cleve, all big Americans, had 6 5/38 towers, just like the second and third Atlanteans. So pure lover.

        As for the 6 "station wagons, then, funny as it may seem, only the Dutch managed to lay down such ships. And I somehow have a bad idea of ​​the provinces or three crowns performed by the Americans, not their scope.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 December 2020 12: 08
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Thank God everything was not there.

          For SUAO 5 "/ 38, I immediately recall the reports of the Big E commander in the battles of the second half of 1942 -"this thing almost never works!". smile
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And I somehow have a bad idea of ​​the provinces or three crowns performed by the Americans, not their scope.

          Well yes ... American cousin Stig Tre Krunur will go up to Baltimore. smile
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 12: 31
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            For SUAO 5 "/ 38, I immediately recall the reports of the Big E commander in the battles of the second half of 1942.

            Yes, I know what you remember. USN has been doing air defenses against USAAC through Billy Mitchell throughout Interbellum. Life did not prepare them for the Val. How is it there, history has given us too little time, something like that.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            "Tre Krunur" will go up to "Baltimore"

            It will not be enough (c). Worcester he is Worcester.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 December 2020 13: 23
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              USN has been doing air defenses against USAAC through Billy Mitchell throughout Interbellum. Life did not prepare them for the Val.

              And this with your own dive bombers? belay
              At least for the air defense of AB, they had to provide for something anti-dive - because the AB were the main target of the dive bombers, and their AB fighters for their own air defense were not enough even for exercises.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              It will not be enough (c). Worcester he is Worcester.

              The main thing is to get into the Panama Canal - the rest of the fleet does not care. smile
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 13: 33
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And this with your own dive bombers?

                Dive bombers only attack aircraft carriers, what else does the rest care? The aircraft carriers, however, also do not have air defense, but these are their aircraft carrier problems, let them get out. Saratoga, for example, preferred that it was not according to her - to leave to Mom in San Francisco, there are no Vals. Good, reliable solution.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The main thing is to get through the Panama Canal

                Well, if you judge so, then yes, there is still room to grow.
        2. unknown
          unknown 1 December 2020 19: 53
          0
          The Dutch did not lay down a cruiser with 6 "universal guns. On cruisers like" De Zeven provincien "the barrel elevation angle was indeed 60 degrees. But, only this does not make the guns universal. High targeting speeds, horizontal and vertical, are needed. High rate of fire.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 20: 40
            -1
            Quote: ignoto
            We need high hover speeds, horizontal and vertical. High rate of fire.

            Well, the Beaufort cannons in semi-unitary and high mechanization were quite good in this respect. Comparable to 5/38 in early installations (MK21, MK22).

            However, I will not really cut myself. While the Dutch were building ships, the situation changed slightly. Non-universal so non-universal.

            Its armament according to the project: 6 * 150 mm.

            If you noticed, I called him "semi-English"))). I am aware of the design weapons. His appearance as an air defense cruiser - finishing up an unfinished ship in England, the British, if they saw old or new, but incomprehensible garbage - put old anti-aircraft guns and passed off as an air defense cruiser)))
            1. unknown
              unknown 1 December 2020 20: 57
              0
              Well, the Swedes have already finished it on "Tre Krunur".
              But, Andrey is from Chelyabinsk. very much doubts the declared characteristics.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 08
                -1
                Quote: ignoto
                Andrey is from Chelyabinsk. very much doubts the declared characteristics.

                Andrei from Chelyabinsk was in principle to recapture the 68th. But in reality there is little information on the cruisers of small countries, it is difficult to prove something here. Very good on paper.
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 05
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        As a result, instead of the fleet's wishlist in the form of a single 8 kt CRL with a 6 "main battery, we had to make 2 CRLs from the systems available in production: one of 8 ct with a universal main battery (with a caliber reduction to 5"), and the other from 6

        In general, we went the British way, having received an analogue of the Fiji - Dido pair.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 33
      -1
      Quote: Potter
      The main armament (according to the project and on the part of the ships actually) 10 - 133mm universal guns in 5 towers, on the part 8 133-mm or 8 114mm. Originally built for service with the latest battleships and aircraft carriers.

      In theory, Atlanteans fall into the same class as Didot and HNLMS Jacob van Heemskerck. But the Englishman and the half-Englishman were exactly what they conceived as a kind of squadron cruiser with an emphasis on air defense, and Atlanta is initially the leader, so it is more correct to compare it with the French or Italian scouts.
      Quote: Potter
      Yes, it was a ship with superpowers for air defense

      No. Air defense capabilities are moderate. The second series of Kolony (Uganda), with a slightly higher displacement, had 2 less air defense towers, but a serious average aura and 4 anti-aircraft directors. And also 9x6 "and some kind of armor, so, by the way.
      Quote: Potter
      The American universal 127-mm cannon was surprisingly well suited for arming ships of all classes.

      Complete shit. The Americans' perceptions of long-range air defense were frankly perverted. For destroyers, the weapon is quite successful.
      Quote: Potter
      in what other fleet was all this at the beginning of WWII?

      Only Americans did this kind of nonsense.
      Quote: Potter
      6 127-mm barrels with 2 good directors at that time, with the presence of radars, and then radio fuses - this is power

      A common mistake. All this wealth appeared in the 44th year. At the time of the laying of the ships, there were no radars and were not planned, all the more so radio fuses.
      Quote: Potter
      America, possessing the most powerful industry, could afford to build 4 types of cruisers in WWII - large ones with 305-mm cannons, heavy ones with 203-mm cannons, and light ones with 12 152mm cannons, such as Cleveland, and 12-16 127-mm cannons. ...

      Silushka, of course, was enough, but God did not give reason. It happens, alas. Of these designs, only Baltimore was relatively successful. Of which 4 were built. Well, that is, in theory, 14, but in fact 4. Possessing the most powerful industry, yes.
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 December 2020 19: 56
        0
        The Dutchman was not originally conceived as an air defense cruiser. Its armament according to the project: 6 * 150 mm.
        The rest is wartime improvisation.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 1 December 2020 21: 27
        0
        In theory, Atlanteans fall into the same class as Didot and HNLMS Jacob van Heemskerck. But the Englishman and the half-Englishman were exactly what they conceived as a kind of squadron cruiser with an emphasis on air defense, and Atlanta is initially the leader, so it is more correct to compare it with the French or Italian scouts.


        Below is a scan from the 1945 US handbook.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 34
          -1
          The bragging American even in official documents is striking. But in the 45th year of Atlanta, especially the latter, were specifically positioned as an air defense cruiser, I'm not going to argue with that. I said "initially" when the Americans decided to burn down the KRL in the restrictions of the second London.
          1. 27091965
            27091965 1 December 2020 21: 51
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            I'm not going to argue with that. I said "initially" when the Americans decided to burn down the KRL in the restrictions of the second London.


            I'm not trying to refute you, if you look at the discussion of this issue in 1937-1939, then the Americans initially defined this type of ship as an air defense cruiser to cover a connection of battleships.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 58
              -1
              This is a new idea for me. Where did you watch the discussion, do you remember?
              1. 27091965
                27091965 1 December 2020 22: 04
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                This is a new idea for me. Where did you watch the discussion, do you remember?


                I will see exactly how the document is called, and I will write to you, I warn you right away it is in English.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 22: 07
                  -1
                  I will be very grateful hi
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 December 2020 09: 42
    +5
    So, the author's messages are clear ...
    In fact, the Atlanteans were designed for service with the squadron. A kind of analogue of a cruiser of the 2nd or 3rd rank, if we follow the classification of the early XX century. They could carry out close reconnaissance, and support or cover destroyers, and carry out air defense functions. A kind of useful wagon. So personally, I think these ships are very successful in concept. Kind of helpful errand boys smile English "Dido" from the same opera, under a 133mm station wagon. Of course, there were also small cruisers for more real cruising 152mm guns, like the same Aretuz or Trompa, but there the main battery is only for sea purposes. So the Atlanteans are successful precisely for service with the squadron.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 16
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      So the Atlanteans are successful precisely for service with the squadron.

      The author is quite correct, which does not happen every time, wrote that there was no niche for them. The tasks for which Atlanta was needed, not Fletcher or Cleveland. The problems of rich people, they had a lot.
  4. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 1 December 2020 10: 51
    +4
    An air defense cruiser? Also no. The air defense ship clearly lacked fire control systems.

    If you do not take into account the use of shells with radio fuses - funny fuze
    Work on the radio fuse was completed by Tove's group, known as Section T, at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.
    Tests in simulated combat conditions began on August 12, 1942. The batteries of guns aboard the cruiser USS Cleveland (CL-55) tested ammunition with proximity fuses against radio-controlled targets over the Chesapeake Bay. The tests were to be carried out within two days, but the tests stopped when the targets were destroyed at the beginning of the first day. Three targets were destroyed by just four shells.
    Combat use:
    the reports on new fuses noted that with 25% of the ammunition on ships with new fuses, they brought more than half of the destroyed aircraft.


    Shells with radio fuses, which were first used in 1943 in the British air defense system, proved to be three times more effectivethan shells equipped with remote fuses, even when using the latest radar fire control

    A particularly successful application was the 90-mm projectile with a VT fuse with an SCR-584 automatic tracking radar and an M-9 fire control computer. The combination of these three inventions allowed the shooting down of many V-1 flying bombs aimed at London and Antwerp, which were difficult targets for anti-aircraft guns with remote fuses.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 14
      -1
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      If you do not take into account the use of shells with radio fuses - funny fuze

      It's like that. But at the time of designing the Atlant, nothing of the kind even occurred to him.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 1 December 2020 13: 11
        +3
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        It's like that. But at the time of designing the Atlant, nothing of the kind even occurred to him.

        But what is the idea itself - a universal caliber instead of the main one.

        However, 2 directors provided air defense fire on both sides or simultaneously two on one side - which is very good at the time of design - a lot of classmates and ships of a higher rank of the same age, did not have centralized air defense control at all, or had one on board.
        2 directors are not bad for that time.
        Taking into account the introduction of radio fuses - the efficiency has tripled - a devilishly effective air defense system.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 13: 19
          +1
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          Taking into account the introduction of radio fuses

          It's like watching the Red Army starting from Kursk, but not looking to Kursk.
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          quite a few peers of classmates and ships of a higher rank, did not have a centralized air defense control at all

          Enough? Atlanta 40th year bookmarks, what kind of peers are they? Not Soviet, in an hour?
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          But what is the idea itself - a universal caliber instead of the main one.

          Weird idea for a cruiser of this size. Yes, I went to the destroyer well.
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 1 December 2020 14: 52
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Weird idea for a cruiser of this size. Yes, I went to the destroyer well.


            Combining the main caliber with the ability to fire at aircraft - this was also tried after the war - was not very successful (USS Worcester).
            So the main caliber in the universal caliber was not bad (De Grasse, who was delayed 1956)
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 15: 01
              -1
              So, one more time.
              1. The universal on EV was considered rather a quirk. Already in the 40s, with the growth of the capabilities of the FCS and the advent of radio fuses, this became an unexpectedly effective solution. But from the 40th year, nothing of the kind was visible. If we take the late 30s, then a gun with a normal caliber for an EV, but relatively low ballistics did not look particularly remarkable.
              2. Universal for LC is at least a controversial decision. The only plus from her is some weight savings due to the shorter citadel. Since not a single American LC, with the exception of Carolina (Washington is no longer there), had no displacement restrictions, the decision can hardly be called successful.
              3. Universal cruisers with the second caliber of cruisers, and even more so 6 "cruisers - insanity.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 13
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                except for Carolina (Washington is gone)

                Can you expand the thought?

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                3. Universal cruisers with the second caliber of cruisers, and even more so 6 "cruisers - insanity.

                And how to fight off high-altitude targets?
                Or wait for the dive bomber to dive?
                1. unknown
                  unknown 1 December 2020 20: 00
                  0
                  Fight back with a 4 "caliber. The mass of the projectile is less, but the rate of fire is higher. The targeting speed is also higher. And most importantly, the firing range is also greater.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 20: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: ignoto
                    Fight back with a 4 "caliber. The mass of the projectile is less, but the rate of fire is higher. The targeting speed is also higher. And most importantly, the firing range is also greater.

                    So, according to the author of the previous post, generalists are not needed at all ...
                    So 4 "no. :)
                    1. unknown
                      unknown 1 December 2020 21: 00
                      0
                      Dutch version.
                      40mm bofors in the Hasemeier?
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 36
                        0
                        Quote: ignoto
                        Dutch version.
                        40mm bofors in the Hasemeier?

                        The British also thought so, only for some reason on the EM one TA had to be changed to a 4 "anti-aircraft gun ... :)
                      2. Dmitry V.
                        Dmitry V. 2 December 2020 09: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: ignoto
                        40mm bofors in the Hasemeier?

                        Beafors have an altitude reach of 4000m.

                        The tactics of Japanese dive bombers in the description of Tokuji Iizuka (pilot of a dive bomber of the Japanese naval aviation, served on the aircraft carrier "Akagi").
                        Our carrier-based bombers - "kanbaku" - had to "dive" from a height of about 8000 m and get out of the dive at about 400 m.

                        It may seem that for enemy anti-aircraft guns, a diving aircraft at high speed is a much more difficult target than a torpedo bomber gliding over the water itself. But in fact, the level of losses for these types of vehicles was approximately the same.
                        The dive bomber was also a fairly simple target for anti-aircraft guns. If only because the attack started from a high altitude and took quite a long time, during which the plane dived at an angle of 50 ° -60 ° to the horizon along a predictable straight trajectory and at a constant speed. So the anti-aircraft gunners just had to choose a lead and fire at some point on this trajectory - and the dive bomber himself flew into the affected area. And trying to dodge the trails of anti-aircraft shells would lead to the fact that your bomb is guaranteed to miss the target.

                        In order to avoid this, we divided the approach to the target into stages. At first, we dived from 8000 m to about 4000 m towards the target, then we could turn slightly, knocking down the sight of the anti-aircraft gunners, and only from about 1000 m we lay down on the final combat course. In general, diving from 8000 m is in itself not the most pleasant feeling, but when they also shoot at you ...

                        Dive bomber notes. Part II http://alternathistory.com/zapiski-pikirovshhika-chast-ii/

                        That is, the universal caliber could keep the pilots of dive bombers in suspense already from the maximum height and range for them and allowed them to upset the close orders of dive bombers on the way.

                        MZA, which includes 40 mm bofors, is 4000 m in height, they cover their area of ​​responsibility.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 01
                  -1
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  Can you expand the thought?

                  BB-56 was laid down 2 weeks earlier than the escalation of London 2 to 45K was signed, but a month later than Vinson's second act allowed the United States to build 45K battleships unilaterally (and added 20% of the negotiated limit at the same time). BB-57 is laid down at 45K, both ships are well below the limit. BB-58-64, including 3 Dakotas, were laid without any restrictions on the LK design. That is why I am writing about Atlanta, that laying ships under 2 years as canceled contractual restrictions is such a national fun of Americans of those years, like baseball.
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  Or wait for the dive bomber to dive?

                  Firstly, 5/38 did not solve this problem before the radar control system and fuses. The only reliable air defense system in such a case is a fighter.
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  So, according to the author of the previous post, generalists are not needed at all ...

                  Secondly, you have some too radical understanding of my thesis. What provided the long-range air defense of cruisers for relatively sane people?

                  Stabilization, unitary of reasonable weight, 100 m / s higher muzzle velocity, the weight of the installation is half as much. Using a gun with separate loading and a relatively short barrel as a naval anti-aircraft gun is not the most obvious idea.

                  If we are to invent the perfect air defense, then naturally the German guns + naturally bofors. Not Hazemayers, STAAGs. In principle, both were available to the Americans, but they did not use both. Bofors is the standard of the 43rd year and beyond, even in the 42nd they were not yet there.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    BB-56 was laid down 2 weeks earlier than the escalation of London 2 to 45K was signed, but a month later than Vinson's second act allowed the United States to build 45K battleships unilaterally (and added 20% of the negotiated limit at the same time).

                    Well ... It's a bit of a substitution of concepts. ;)

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    BB-57 is laid down at 45K, both ships are well below the limit. BB-58-64, including 3 Dakotas, were laid without any restrictions on the LK design.

                    The trouble is that Congress didn't provide excess funding. Therefore, it was necessary to build what it was, that is, 36-thousand meters.
                    They were so greedy, so greedy, that after the war they launched an investigation into the Iowa as a misuse of funds. To calm the senators, the naval forces had to organize special firing - supposedly tests of Japanese armor. :)

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    That is why I write about Atlanta that laying ships under 2 years as canceled contractual restrictions is such a national fun of Americans of those years, like baseball.

                    Maybe in the absence of a stamp, they write in simple terms?
                    The Germans did not abandon the completion of the Bismarck when the concept suddenly changed and Plan Z appeared.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Firstly, 5/38 did not solve this problem before the radar control system and fuses.

                    The anti-aircraft barrage still worked.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Using a gun with separate loading and a relatively short barrel as a naval anti-aircraft gun is not the most obvious idea.

                    And this is the best there was.
                    The radically better appeared only in '45 on the Midway.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Bofors is the standard of the 43rd year and beyond, even in the 42nd they were not yet there.

                    Um ... Quite a strange statement.
                    "Bofors" began to appear en masse on American ships in the fall of the 42nd.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 22: 40
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      Well ... It's a bit of a substitution of concepts. ;)

                      I mean, if the Americans decided in February 40 to lay Alabama in memory of the second London Treaty - should we respect this beautiful gesture?

                      LC laid down without restrictions: Dakota 58-60, Iowa, Alaska, Vanguard, N39, pr 23, pr 69, Yamato.

                      LK, laid down in restrictions 45K / 16 "- Washington, Dakota BB-57, Lyons.

                      Only this way, nothing else.
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      The trouble is that Congress didn't provide excess funding.

                      Really? Is it under Roosevelt? In 38, the Congress already worked in the "everything for the front, everything for victory" regime, although they don't like to talk about it.
                      No, by yourself, by yourself. For 20 years, no hands got around to design a PanamaxLK.
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      after the war, an investigation was launched into the Iowa as a misuse of funds.

                      For the American pre-war shipbuilding it is necessary to shoot. I liked building the LC so much that there is not a single one no one a normal ship in main classes on December 7th.

                      And what has been screwed up on Iowa itself, it's just to kill yourself against the wall. One main caliber was worth what.

                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      Maybe in the absence of a stamp, they write in simple terms?
                      The Germans did not abandon the completion of the "Bismarck"

                      Have you noticed that you are writing about the completion, and I - about the bookmark? I have no complaints about Carolina, except for the fact that this is the worst 35K LC. Yes, even KD5 is better, perhaps.
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      The anti-aircraft barrage still worked.

                      Psychologically
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      And this is the best there was.

                      You say it like that, as if God sends guns, but people do not.
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      Um ... Quite a strange statement.
                      "Bofors" began to appear en masse on American ships in the fall of the 42nd.

                      To appear, yes, massively no. On the Dakota, initially there was no 40mm, in September 42, they delivered as many as 16 barrels, packed from the heart only in February of the 43rd. Washington changed the piano to 40mm in April 43rd. Etc.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 22: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine

                        I mean, if the Americans decided in February 40 to lay Alabama in memory of the second London Treaty - should we respect this beautiful gesture?

                        What were the options? The money has already been budgeted, alternative projects are still in deep development, and the fleet needs to be strengthened. Your actions?

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Only this way, nothing else.

                        Pulling an owl on a globe ...;)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Really? Is it under Roosevelt?

                        Yes ... That's how the Dakotas came about. :)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I liked building the LC so much that there is not a single normal ship in the main classes on December 7.

                        Unfortunately, big ships are not born at the snap of your fingers.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I have no complaints about Carolina, except for the fact that this is the worst 35K LC.

                        What to do if the project had to be cut urgently ... :)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You say it like that, as if God sends guns, but people do not.

                        What TTZ was issued, such a barrel was cut down.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        In the Dakota initially

                        Nobody had them in the project ... :)
                        Replaced as production was established.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 00: 20
                        +2
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Replaced as production was established.

                        So I don't argue. You just need to understand that the air defense of the 41st year - the pianos and machine guns, the 42nd - Oerlikon, and only the 43rd - Bofors. That the Americans of Guadalcanal or the Coral Sea differ from the Americans of Okinawa no less than the Moscow defensive red army from the Berlin offensive red army.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        What TTZ was issued, such a barrel was cut down.

                        And I have no questions about the industry. I'll tell you more, the industry had a 90mm anti-aircraft gun, and in an incredible amount. But it's overland, so it’s a mess.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        What to do if the project had to be cut urgently

                        The cut of the project under 16 "allows it to somehow stay on the background of a 20-year-old ship. The original project 12x14" left no doubt about the sad level of American battleship-building thought.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Unfortunately, big ships are not born at the snap of your fingers.

                        I said no one normal ship for December 41st. Not even Fletcher yet. And later, practically everything that the Americans built - frankly, are not masterpieces.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Yes ... That's how the Dakotas came about. :)

                        Sorry? How did the Dakotas come about? Someone tried to fix the fail with the Carolins, American Sevastopol, LC without armor, LCR without speed, and make at least some acceptable LC? Not interested at all in the fact that Roosevelt's emissaries have been sitting in London since March 38th and demanding an increase in VI to 45K? Do you call this objective circumstances or what?

                        Or do you want to tell a story from Wiki that Roosevelt "had to agree" to the 35K LC? This has nothing to do with the fact that he simply did not have the 45K LK project, no?
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Pulling an owl on a globe ...;)

                        Not understood. Do you have any complaints about the calendar or what?
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Your actions?

                        You want to breed me for an alternative wassat ?

                        Please.
                        1. Bet immediately on modernization ...
                        ...
                        Nelsons and Hood. This is generally the best thing that Americans could do in the 38th year. It is incredible, but sometimes it is beneficial to be kind.
                        2. Modernization of New York and Wisconsins (both) in LKR according to the Italian version.
                        3. Upgrading the Colorado troika to West Virginia '44.
                        4. Purchase of blueprints for Dunkirk, replacement of towers by 14 "from KD5. They weigh almost the same.
                        5. Design without unnecessary noise on the basis of Dunkirk AB. Such AB will somewhat come out of contractual restrictions, but 30K AB is just what you need. And the restrictions are not for long. Just before the 39th year, we lay the LC, after the 39th - AB.
                        6. Designing a small LC under the minimum of London restrictions, 25K / 10 ". That is, we tell everyone that we are designing a small LC, but in fact we are designing a conventional MCT for 15-20K. Since we do not have a normal MCT. We put it in the 39th.
                        7. We buy the blueprints of Algeria, rework them into 4x3x6 ", Mogami vice versa. We get a very good KRL, which in real life will never appear in the USA. We put it in the 39th.
                        8. We buy Tromp's blueprints, we begin to build by the methods of large-section assembly with the replacement of guns by 3x2x5 ". We hammer the limit of the KRL with them, since one dog cannot build a normal KRL 8K. The first building is called" Gearing ". In the 39th we will reclassify into EM.
                        9 (this is the main thing). Under the guise of EM of the Fletcher type, we design an escort EM of the Hunt-4 type. We spend a fairly free VI situation on sharpening the project for a large batch. Very large.

                        Is it enough? wassat

                        Given the American arrogance, practically none of this is possible. So the proposals need to be worked out in detail, taking into account the mood of Mr. Vinson and the state of health of Mr. Taft. However, the meaning of the alternative is to be a kind of measure of efficiency.
                      3. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 19: 12
                        0
                        I wrote and wrote an answer, but it fell ... :(
                        In short ...

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The original 12x14 project left no doubt about the sad level of American battleship-building thought.

                        A similar project was developed specifically for the 2nd London, like "KD5", and therefore so absurd.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I said no normal ship for December 41st. Not even Fletcher yet. And later, practically everything that the Americans built - frankly, are not masterpieces.

                        You are a perfectionist ...;)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        This has nothing to do with the fact that he simply did not have the 45K LK project, no?

                        Actually, this is what I meant: the budget has been allocated, there is a 35kt project. I had to build what was.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Please.

                        A great science fiction writer died in you ... :)
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 23: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        I wrote and wrote an answer, but it fell ... :(

                        crying crying crying
                        Here's the same bullshit just now. But I have a site in the proxy list, the page is updated from time to time, so if I write a long post, I copy it to the clipboard.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        You are a perfectionist ...;)

                        I do not think that it is bad, but a lot is good. And this principle of mine applies not only to the IL-2 with the T-34, but also to the Dakotas (I have already written which battleships are their analogues), Balty-Oregon-Des Moines (20 of 15 KRTs were built after the war), Cleves ( how to make a cruiser worse than the USSR did), Essexes (a floating warehouse of aircraft), Independences (and who did they forget to shoot for such a decision?), Atlantes (already discussed), Fletchers (to make EM out of armor, with a battleship FCS, pensioners will pay), EEM such as Ewarts and further (less than three years from the beginning of Happy Times, and a year and a half from PX, King and Knox finally thought of starting to steal ships from the British, an incredibly creative idea for Americans of those years. provided what? Boats of 500 tons? Clemsons?)
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Actually, this is what I meant: the budget has been allocated, there is a 35kt project. I had to build what was.

                        Unlike you, I am not ready to consider this as objective circumstances. Not without irritation I perceive the stories of how Roosevelt's employees broke into a cake to strengthen the defense of their native country, and the crazy isolationists-pacifists from Congress interfered with them. In reality, Congress brought up money in wagons, the isolationists demanded that everything and more be done in order to properly isolate themselves from the crazy Europeans and their showdown, and the hand-crafted and thieving Roosevelt fosterlings nothing at all could not do it properly.

                        Actually, this is what we are talking about. When they tell me that
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        The trouble is that Congress didn't provide excess funding. Therefore, it was necessary to build what it was, that is, 36-thousand meters.
                        They were so greedy

                        I see this picture:

                        Monday 21 March 1938 The House of Representatives votes Vinson's second act. Roosevelt arrives there and says:
                        Comrades! Citizens! Brothers and sisters!

                        The American people ordered me to build 6 battleships for the country (BB-54-60), three more Comrade Vinson wisely and weighty suggests to build now. With shame and pain I say that I have failed the American people. I have nothing to justify with, but you should know: in difficult, dark times for our people, when the sun of the Great October Socialist Revolution had not yet risen over the earth, when the genius of the great Lenin and Stalin had not yet illuminated our path, our country laid the so-called "standard" battleships, BB 36-46, and did not lay down battle cruisers at all. Then it seemed like a good idea, I personally, the Deputy Minister of the Fleet, did not mind. But alas, we were all wrong.

                        Our friends and enemies, unlike us, had and still have a high-speed wing of the fleet. Britain - 3 ships, Japan - 4 ships, Italy - 4 ships (the entire fleet there is now high-speed). This gave them an operational advantage. But the last years have become a much worse, truly terrible sign for us. French (4 buildings), Italian (2 buildings), German (4 buildings), English (5 buildings) new LK and LKR - they are all 30 nodes. Time has shown that it is the battle cruiser, not the battleship, that is the real thunderstorm of the oceans. Against this background, our newest ship, North Carolina, is uncompetitive.

                        But this is not all our troubles, alas. You know that I am until the last day pulled the cat by the balls avoided the naval arms race. But the position of the Japanese Empire left me no choice, and I was forced to agree to the transfer of our battleships to 16 "main caliber. The trouble is that our opponents, apparently, are also building such ships, two or even three. A 16" battleship in a displacement of 35K cannot be high-speed. Our French friends have done everything to get a 15 "balanced high-speed battleship, it is impossible to make the ship better. We must give up either speed or 16" main guns.

                        Comrade Vinson proposes to increase the displacement to 45 thousand tons of the standard. Bowing down to comrade Vinson, this will solve all our problems. But before that we have to build 5 more obviously second-class ships. The American people will not forgive you and me for such mismanagement. Give me high-speed battleships - this is the request of the old mother, Sarah Delano Roosevelt, give me 16 "and the zone of invulnerability - this is my child, John Aspinwall, give me Panamax battleships - this is the cry of my native American land!

                        I ask and implore you to amend the law that within the approved displacement I can build not 8, but 7 new LCs, increasing the displacement of each to 45 thousand tons. So I brought the project. We're going to make the most of the recyclable materials that we dumped after the 20 Dakotas and Lexingtons were canceled, so for the money, the American Vanguard is fine (well, you don't know about Vanguard, I'll explain later).

                        Yes, we will never have the battleship Missouri, we will have nothing to sign Japan's surrender. Nothing, we'll sign on the knee, war is war.

                        Let's vote quickly. Who is behind this proposal? Who is against the American people?


                        And the congressmen are:
                        How tired of you, old devil! Build as instructed and don't cringe! We are the power here! (from).


                        This is approximately the picture I see when they tell me about "I had to build 5 ships, obsolete even before the laying." In reality, the Iowa project was completed only by December 39th, when only Alabama remained from the Dakotas, but Iowa was built in New York, and Alabama in Virginia, they decided not to complicate and lay anything, but urgently and on all available stocks.

                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        A great science fiction writer died in you ... :)

                        How, already dead? And I was going to write my proposals, how I am such a handsome man (slightly bald, but) chest in orders, women fall at their feet, like this

                        This is Claude A. Swanson (I didn't seem to confuse the portrait), since March 5, 1933, the US Secretary of the Navy, I'm getting ready to build Big fleet Fleet of the Two Oceans.

                        In the same place, hair on end, what opportunities were favored!
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        It was not normal - it was cheaper ...

                        Colonies are cheaper than Didot, seriously?
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Two AB.
                        Hornet and Essex

                        Not a fig, I looked good. Wasp April 1, Essex 28th. Behind smooth 5 years old - Hornet only.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Cunningham would strongly disagree with you ...

                        That is, the two of us with horse with the viscount? The haberdasher and the cardinal are strength! (from)

                        PS I didn't manage to fix it that time.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        23K AB (with parallel design, again, a large MRT, Independence vice versa)

                        Saipan of course.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Designing a small LC for a minimum of London restrictions, 25K / 10 "

                        17,5K / 10 "is the minimum border of the capital thorn in the second London (confused with the English sentences 25/12). That is, in general, a completely normal MCT is obtained when replacing the main body. For Des Moines, even 17,5 is not enough.
                      5. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 3 December 2020 18: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Colonies are cheaper than Didot, seriously?

                        Cheaper than "town" ... "Colony" is a "town" for the poor.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Not a fig, I looked good. Wasp April 1, Essex 28th. For exactly 5 years - only Hornet.

                        You are also a bureaucrat .... :)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        That is, we are alone with a horse with a viscount? The haberdasher and the cardinal are strength! (from)

                        It's just that Cunningham, when he came to the Admiralty, immediately canceled all work on small cruisers and gave the command to work on the development of the Belfast.
                      6. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 3 December 2020 22: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        "Colonies" is a "town" for the poor.

                        The original post discussed Didot. I drew the attention of a colleague to the fact that the last Didot is the 40th year, then only Colony.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        You are also a bureaucrat .... :)

                        1. You know, you cannot argue against the truth. AV: LK 1:10 in a five-year period.
                        2. A bureaucratic approach is sometimes very helpful. With him it is more difficult to accept the rotten excuse that the first Dakota, laid down a day later than the second Lyon, is "the best of the 35K battleships negotiated." She is the worst off-contract battleship other than perhaps Clemenceau.

                        Well, the bookmark of the first Iowa is more than a year later Lyona Temeraire also says nothing good about the American military-industrial complex.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        A similar project was developed specifically for the 2nd London, like "KD5", and therefore so absurd.

                        It is absurd not because it was developed for a second London, but because it was written by Uncle Fyodor, a dog and a cat in turn. If Swanson and Standley had said “we don’t believe in speed, give us Nelson, and speed - how much will remain for change” - this is a choice, and they had such a project. If they said "We need LCR. Here is the German version, speed due to weapons, and the English version, speed due to armor. If on the way we are at war with Japan, then 8 out of 10, let's say 8 out of 14 ships are not the strongest 14 ", let's focus on this then. 30 knots, armor under the invulnerability zone 14", how much weight remains. Yes, it's dangerous to meet the new 15 "Europeans and all the British, but there's nothing you can do, we can't do Richelieu with our crooked hands" - this is also a choice, and they also had such projects (and even this option was almost passed). But they didn't choose exactly nothing... And here you want, and there you want, as a result, and Carolina is half-and-half, and then Dakota at all, which was pure, not cloudy with sabotage. If, they say, convinced anti-fascists were engaged in the design of tanks in the Third Reich, then repulsed flotophobes, whose hands trembled with fury at the word "ship", were engaged in American ships. For the sake of harmony, only no less fanatical pacifists were recruited into the military department.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 00: 59
                -1
                PS.

                The bells and whistles with Dunkirk are screwed up on the assumption that the main ship of the real Pacific war is a large shock AB, so you need to come to it as quickly as possible. But returning to the beginning of the 38th year, the real attitude of all the aces, except for the pensioner Yarnell, was that AB is an auxiliary class of ships. So it is more realistic to spend all the unspent love on a contractual 23K AB (with parallel design, again, a large KRT, Independence, on the contrary), and in the LC part, immediately start pushing Lexington cars, okay Essex, into a 1920 Dakota building, albeit at a cost one tower.
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 2 December 2020 10: 00
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Firstly, 5/38 did not solve this problem before the radar control system and fuses. The only reliable air defense system in such a case is a fighter.

          I can only give the previous quote by Tokuji Iizuka (pilot of a dive bomber of the Japanese naval aviation)
          It may seem that for enemy anti-aircraft guns, a diving aircraft at high speed is a much more difficult target than a torpedo bomber gliding over the water itself. But in fact, the level of losses for these types of vehicles was approximately the same. The dive bomber was also a fairly simple target for anti-aircraft guns. If only because the attack started from a high altitude and took quite a long time, during which the plane dived at an angle of 50 ° -60 ° to the horizon along a predictable straight trajectory and at a constant speed. So the anti-aircraft gunners just had to choose a lead and fire at some point on this trajectory - and the dive bomber himself flew into the affected area. And trying to dodge the trails of anti-aircraft shells would lead to the fact that your bomb is guaranteed not to hit the target.

          In order to avoid this, we divided the approach to the target into stages. At first, we dived from 8000 m to about 4000 m towards the target, then we could turn slightly, knocking down the sight of the anti-aircraft gunners, and only from about 1000 m we lay down on the final combat course. In general, diving from 8000 m is in itself not the most pleasant feeling, but when they also shoot at you ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 10: 21
            -1
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            I can only quote the previous quote by Tokuji Iizuka

            It remains to correct your idea of ​​the work of anti-aircraft artillery and stop confusing the tracks from the beaufort, which worked with a direct hit, and anti-aircraft artillery, which worked as fragmentation damage during remote blasting. You can only set up a remote detonator so that it knocks down a dive bomber during a dive. The dive bomber must be shot down earlier, in level flight. A radio fuse, yes, it is capable of shooting down in a dive.
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 2 December 2020 10: 37
              +1
              My idea was formed under the influence of professors of technical sciences and DTN at a specialized department of LA - you really allow me to stay with me.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              and stop confusing the tracks from the bofors, which worked with a direct hit, and anti-aircraft artillery

              And what made you think so funny that it is not familiar to me?

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You can only set up a remote detonator so that it knocks down a dive bomber during a dive.


              As the dear Macsen_Wledig (Maxim) already wrote
              anti-aircraft barrage fire in one attack cycle can be echeloned repeatedly - from 8000 meters - at least seven values ​​of the tube distance. and the created field of debris is very lucky for a single aircraft or a link in a close formation.
              Especially for the leader of the dive bombers. It was more difficult to transfer the fire to the subsequent diving links - it was more difficult, since they entered the dive when the fire was directed at the leader and the fire impact on them was not so long.
              By the way, air defense cruisers - just the most effective solution to such problems, even with an AP with remote tubes - due to the high density of fire and rate of fire
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 2 December 2020 09: 37
      +1
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      2. Universal for LC is at least a controversial decision.


      As the history of the development of military shipbuilding has shown, this is the only correct decision.
      What we see the main weapons on modern ships are universal guns (with an increase in the rate of fire, the number of installations and caliber decreased).

      Replacement of HA for universal on LC, for the beginning of the 40s is not an obvious, but intuitively correct tendency.
      In the late 30s in the USA and in the early 30s in Great Britain, naval analysts understood that aviation would become the main threat and tried to decide how to "use" the main caliber in repelling an air attack: the HMS Dido class series - was considered successful decision.
      It may not be obvious to you.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 10: 16
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        As the history of the development of military shipbuilding has shown, this is the only correct decision.

        The story did not show anything like that.
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        What we see the main weapons on modern ships

        P-f-f.
        We see rockets. The British, with their anti-aircraft rocket launchers, were right. Guess right, right?
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        In the late 30s in the United States and early 30s in the UK, naval analysts realized that aviation would become the main threat.

        What other analysts? In the period from April 36th, the States for exactly 5 years laid one AB, and 10 (ten) LC.
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        series HMS Dido class - was considered a good solution.

        Who is considered?
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 2 December 2020 10: 39
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Who is considered?


          Well, apparently not by you :)
          Since they were built in a large series of 11 units and forgot to clarify your dissenting opinion.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 12: 41
            -1
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Well, apparently not by you :)

            Not by me.
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Since they were built in a large series

            In peacetime. Gone are the contracts - they began to refine a much more normal CD of the Colony type.
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            And what made you think so funny that it is not familiar to me?

            The quote you gave.
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            My idea was formed under the influence of professors of technical sciences and DTN at the specialized department of LA

            Did you study the work of the cannon air defense during WWII there? I envy your outlook.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 20: 16
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Gone are the contracts - they began to refine a much more normal CD of the Colony type.

              It was not normal - it was cheaper ...
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 20: 09
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          In the period from April 36th, the States for exactly 5 years laid one AB, and 10 (ten) LC.

          Two AB.
          Hornet and Essex
      2. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 19: 56
        0
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        Dido class - was considered a good solution.
        It may not be obvious to you.

        Cunningham would strongly disagree with you ...
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 3 December 2020 09: 50
          +1
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Cunningham would strongly disagree with you ...


          Admirals are preparing for the previous war, with this approach, classic artillery cruisers were closer to my heart :)
          And the air defense cruiser - it was difficult to "adapt to the case," as Cunningham understood him.

          Argument?
          Operation on Crete - convoys from Alexandria approached the island in the morning and the Luftwaffe took advantage of this.
          The British Navy lost in the Battle of Crete (solely from aviation): three cruisers, six destroyers, 10 auxiliary ships and more than 10 transports and merchant ships. Three battleships, an aircraft carrier, six cruisers and 7 destroyers were damaged.
          About 2 thousand people died.


          The reason is underestimation of the impact of aviation.
          The Cretan operation, that case - where the air defense cruiser would be the most useful ships.

          By the way, during the war, not a single air defense cruiser died from the effects of aviation - a too risky target for aviation. The submarines played on air defense cruisers.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 3 December 2020 18: 48
            +1
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Argument?

            The best argument is that Cunningham, who came to replace the First Sea Lord, at a meeting of the Prospective Construction Committee held on January 17, 1944, declared that, based on the experience of the command of the Mediterranean fleet, he did not like the cruiser with 5,25 inch artillery and prefers ships with 6 inch guns. He also spoke in favor of abandoning further work on the project of a small cruiser in favor of a Neptune-type KRL with twelve 152 mm guns and a universal caliber of six paired 114 mm installations.
            Remind, WHO commanded the Mediterranean fleet in May 41st? ;)
    3. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 2 December 2020 11: 24
      0
      [quote] [But from the 40th year nothing like that was visible. / quote]
      The British began work on radar fuses back in 1939. In 1940, the developments were transferred to the United States.
      [quote] Since no American LC, with the exception of Carolina (Washington is no longer there), had no displacement restrictions, the decision can hardly be called successful [/ quote]
      The 35000 t limit was canceled in the spring-summer of 1938 and a 45000 t limit was introduced. Accordingly, the 45000 t limit was canceled in September 1939 with the outbreak of war. Battleship bookmarks are approved by Congress for the respective fiscal year. So Washington was established in 1938 in accordance with the 1938 budget approved in 1937.
      [quote] Station wagons with the second caliber of cruisers, and even more so 6 "cruisers - insanity.
      Don't rely too much on Chicago pianos and Beaufors. They are effective against dive bombers only when massaging fire (16 -20 barrels at one target) and then at the last stage of the attack. Universal cars allow you to fire several volleys while approaching the target.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 December 2020 12: 46
        +1
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        The British began work on radar fuses back in 1939. In 1940, the developments were transferred to the United States.

        Afterbirth. Are you seriously going to prove that the choice of 5/38 was associated with radio fuses?
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        imitate 35000 tons was canceled in the spring-summer of 1938 and a limit of 45000 tons was introduced. Accordingly, the limit of 45000 tons was canceled in September 1939 with the outbreak of war.

        So.
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        So Washington was established in 1938 in accordance with the 1938 budget approved in 1937.

        Not quite, but the question is what? What, someone tried to lay instead of Washington battleship Soviet Union Iowa, but Congressmen didn't give him?
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        Universal cars allow you to fire several volleys while approaching the target.

        Above is the opinion of the operators that these guns are useless in the 42nd year. The American air defense model of 41 and earlier is defiantly mediocre.
  • Monar
    Monar 1 December 2020 18: 19
    +1
    Why do you call the V-1 a bomb? A typical cruise missile. In my humble opinion.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 1 December 2020 11: 14
    +1
    Thank you so much, Roman!
    For the first time, the article correctly poses the question: what is this ship intended for?
    Secondary displacement, armament, speed, protection. It's all facilities achieving the goal.
    Hence the conclusions:
    Cruiser - Long Arm of Light Forces;
    6000 T for a cruiser is absurd;
    The leader (he is also a super destroyer) must have a speed not lower than that of ordinary destroyers;
    Armor, in the absence of long-range artillery, can prolong the agony of a super destroyer under fire from the "big boys", and is simply a means of slowing down.
    Paradoxically, the shape of the hull, speed and autonomy of the Atlanta-class cruiser are very similar to their opponents, who were born 20 years later. This refers to the missile cruiser pr.58.
    1. unknown
      unknown 1 December 2020 20: 49
      +1
      6000 tons is the minimum displacement for an ocean-going cruiser, according to the British.
      How can we not remember here, the cruisers of the domestic fleet with a displacement of 6000 tons.
      The Japanese, according to the RYAV result, had a better opinion of them than of their 3000-thousanders.
      Ordinary destroyers, fully loaded, had a speed of 30-31 knots. And on excitement?
      Almost all WWII cruisers had such a speed.
  • Avior
    Avior 1 December 2020 11: 21
    +6
    it is unclear why the author so persistently denies that the cruisers were a very good means of air defense.
    Two directions are not enough, of course, but 8 127 mm guns covered this direction very reliably.
    and even more so with the advent of new shells.
    It would be logical to add a couple more devices, but even without this, the air defense cruiser was quite good.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 11: 47
      -1
      Quote: Avior
      it is unclear why the author so persistently denies that the cruisers were a very good means of air defense.

      Not bad compared to Fletcher. Bad compared to Cleveland. Against the background of the total air defense force of the American task force, the Atlant value is negligible.
      1. Avior
        Avior 1 December 2020 12: 51
        +3
        and how was Cleveland better at air defense?

        One Japanese aircraft was enough to sink a Cleveland-class aircraft carrier.
        Not very air defense.
        Cleveland was 2 times bigger - you need to consider.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 13: 12
          0
          Quote: Avior
          and how was Cleveland better at air defense?

          Yes, about the same. 6x2 5/38, 2 directors MK37. American air defense was not as smart as people think.

          This is also the point that the "air defense cruiser" and "just a cruiser" did not differ in this respect. But a simple cruiser has 12x6 "and armor, while Atlanta does not.
          Quote: Avior
          One Japanese plane was enough

          Well, this is just ridiculous. Only the insurance policy (s) will give you a guarantee.
          1. Avior
            Avior 1 December 2020 13: 46
            +2
            the cruiser was just twice as large in displacement.
            these are different ships.
            and the anti-aircraft gun was worse than that of the Atlanteans - both 127 mm and small caliber.
            Then Baltimore, not Cleveland. slightly larger, but a full-fledged good cruiser.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 13: 53
              0
              Quote: Avior
              the cruiser was just twice as large in displacement.

              Yes. What does the navy care about displacement? They are not about money even once.
              Quote: Avior
              and the anti-aircraft gun was worse than that of the Atlanteans - both 127 mm and small caliber.

              Why did it happen? There is just more space for the Bofors on the cleats. 6 towers 5/38 in a diamond versus 6 in a line + 2 side ones? I would not say that it is so much worse.
              Quote: Avior
              Then Baltimore, not Cleveland. slightly larger, but a full-fledged good cruiser.

              Yes, but there are 4 balts, and 10 cleaves, even 11 counting the CL-64 (I see only combat-ready ones by the summer of 44, that is, those delivered in 43).
              1. Avior
                Avior 1 December 2020 14: 00
                +1
                Yes. What does the navy care about displacement? They are not about money even once.

                it's about the number of ships.
                if they are twice as expensive, there are half of them. and quantity matters.
                then I'll give you copy-paste from aunt wiki
                cruisers turned out to be the weakest project of wartime. A hasty military improvisation, subject to two requirements - faster, more powerful. The cruisers were unbalanced - the offensive qualities of the cruisers were considered a priority over the defensive ones. Despite the haste of construction, the cruisers fell into the wrong types of battles for which they were designed [22].
                Light anti-aircraft weapons were inadequate: half the size of the Baltimors, which were the largest by only 2000 tons, and six barrels less than half the size of the Atlant. The cruisers had one specific drawback that other fleets left in the armored era: they were armed with two medium-caliber guns of close calibers, which made it difficult to zero in at medium and long distances at one target ..... Reservation was weakened compared to the prototype. Having lost the power of the Brooklyn, they did not become an anti-aircraft shield for aircraft carriers. The Clevelands had a very heavy construction overload. The upgraded potential of the Clevelands turned out to be small, and therefore they were scrapped before their "older brothers". .... unprotected bow and stern extremities (75 and 55 m long, respectively) could lead to the death of the ship in the event of underwater holes, even if the ship was in the free maneuvering zone and the armor was not pierced. The all-or-nothing protection scheme was intended for long-range battles in which cruisers were not able to participate. According to the experience of combat operations, the unprotected extremities were easily destroyed even by destroyer shells and shrapnel, which led to extensive flooding. The presence of transverse watertight bulkheads did not help much, since they could also be pierced. They also poorly proved themselves as air defense cruisers, it was the Cleveland-class cruiser that could not protect the ward from a single Japanese aircraft [24]. The crew on them was huge - twice as large as on the Atlanta and the same number as on the much more powerful Baltimore. As a result, the command of the American fleet valued the Clevelands extremely low.

                hi
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 14: 12
                  -1
                  Quote: Avior
                  it's about the number of ships.

                  On January 1, 44th, 4 Atlantes (2 more lost), 4 Balts, 10 Cleaves.
                  Quote: Avior
                  then I'll give you copy-paste from aunt wiki

                  Cleve was a complete shit, it's hard to argue here. But Atlanta doesn't get any better.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 1 December 2020 14: 16
                    +2
                    well, lost in war is a matter of chance.
                    where they sent and how they got.
                    I don't think Atlanta is excellent, but in terms of air defense it was quite in my opinion. Before the war, little thought about air defense at all.
                    16 mm is solid strength, albeit with two controls.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 14: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Avior
                      I don't think Atlanta is excellent, but in terms of air defense it was quite in my opinion. Before the war, little thought about air defense at all.

                      He was quite in the 44th year. Not 40.

                      By the way, about the 40th year. For a known circumstance, the London Treaty of 36 had ceased to operate by that time. So the laying of Atlanta instead of normal cruisers (Ugandans were laid down a year earlier) is pure sabotage, for which the Americans of those years were great masters.
                      Quote: Avior
                      lost in war is a matter of chance.

                      And there are more cleaves.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 December 2020 14: 30
          +4
          Quote: Avior
          and how was Cleveland better at air defense?

          One Japanese aircraft was enough to sink a Cleveland-class aircraft carrier.

          This thesis is especially well illustrated by the KRL type "Atlanta" (specifically - "Reno") in the foreground of your photo. laughing
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 14: 47
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            KRL type "Atlanta" (specifically - "Reno")

            good
            I saw 6 towers, but I stepped.
          2. Avior
            Avior 1 December 2020 16: 08
            +1

            is it better?
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 16
              0
              Quote: Avior
              is it better?

              Do you mean that Birmingham could not put out the fire? :)
              1. Avior
                Avior 1 December 2020 19: 22
                +1
                Birmingham suffered an explosion on an aircraft carrier, killing a significant part of the crew.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  Birmingham suffered an explosion on an aircraft carrier, killing a significant part of the crew.

                  I know if anything ...
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 20: 44
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                You mean that Birmingham could not

                You can see that the jet is weak. Old already)))
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 20: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You can see that the jet is weak. Old already)))

                  laughing laughing laughing
          3. Avior
            Avior 1 December 2020 18: 50
            +1
            Reno and 3 destroyers were dispatched to provide assistance and security when a fire broke out on the aircraft carrier
        3. unknown
          unknown 1 December 2020 20: 02
          0
          There was also an Atlanta-class cruiser, if that.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 1 December 2020 11: 36
    +3
    The author is a problem. As well as the problem of understanding what a standard move is, I see that reading the clauses of the treaty is also a problem.
    The 1930 London Treaty defined cruisers as ships with a standard displacement of more than 1850 tons (1880 tons) OR a gun caliber of more than 130 mm.

    So Atlanta was not a destroyer leader, but a cruiser. Well, there is not even such a case as in the case of the Japanese Mogami-class cruisers, where a change in the main armament would allow getting an over-limit ship of a different class.
    Atlanta was still classified as a cruiser and ate the US cruiser B (light) limit of 143 tons.

    And contrary to what the author writes, these were air defense cruisers. And this is not the first. The first were the British Dido-class cruisers, the keel for which was laid in October 1937. The contract to build Atlanta, designed by Gibbs & Cox, was awarded to Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. in Kearney, New Jersey, April 25, 1939. The keel was laid on April 22 of the following year - 2,5 years later than the British!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. La Peruse
      La Peruse 1 December 2020 12: 28
      +1
      She was the first to rework Type C light cruisers in His Majesty's fleet. In 35, they decided to convert them into air defense cruisers with 10x102mm guns and I don’t remember at a glance how many 40mm assault rifles there are. Freaks still turned out but were in great demand when escorting convoys
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 1 December 2020 13: 23
        +1
        Correctly. The first converted C-class cruiser was HMS Coventry, which at the end of 1935 began to be converted into an anti-aircraft cruiser. It entered service at the turn of 1939/1940. Reconstruction of HMS Cardiff and Calcutta was due to start in June 1938, as was HMS Curlew. The war interrupted and postponed these plans and entered service with a delay. HMS Curracoa began modernization in early July 1939, and HMS Caledon only in the middle of the war, in 1943.

        The example of HMS Coventry shows that in 1935-1936 the very idea of ​​an air defense cruiser was not as unusual as the author writes, and could also refer to the USS Atlanta.
        1. La Peruse
          La Peruse 1 December 2020 13: 31
          0
          So they came to this idea back in 20 years. Let us recall the experience of the same British when they tried to make them non-versatile near the counties of the GK in 208mm. Later, the Japanese really went even further in their experiments trying to adapt the Yamato and Musashi groups to destroy aircraft, or rather torpedo bombers ...
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 1 December 2020 13: 36
            0
            The 460mm Sanshikidan (三 式 弾, "type 3 shell") shells were introduced for the Yamato and Musashi guns, which does not mean that they can be called anti-aircraft guns.
            1. La Peruse
              La Peruse 1 December 2020 13: 47
              0
              So no one argues. But the very fact of perverted thought ... By the way, non-versatile vehicles are also not anti-aircraft guns
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 December 2020 14: 35
      0
      Quote: Constanty
      And contrary to what the author writes, these were air defense cruisers.

      Initially, these were exactly the "scouts" to replace the "Omaha". And the leaders of the EM fleets.
      An air defense cruiser does not need torpedo tubes. But he needs more KDP / directors of the Civil Code.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 1 December 2020 14: 48
        0
        Torpedo tubes pushed anywhere - even battleships like HMS Rodney, battleship Deutschland, etc.

        But he needs more KDP / directors of the Civil Code

        Yes - this is shown by the experience of the Great Patriotic War, but for 1935-1936. It seemed like enough.

        Anyway, when you look at HMS Coventry, no doubt rebuilt into an air defense cruiser, it did not have more / much more KDP / GK directors
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 December 2020 17: 00
          +2
          Quote: Constanty
          Torpedo tubes pushed anywhere - even battleships like HMS Rodney, battleship Deutschland, etc.

          We're talking about the Americans - who had Omaha-type scouts as the only interwar RCs with TA (before Atlant). And that's all - not a single CR torpedo tubes received. Although all over the world their pushed anywhere.
          Quote: Constanty
          Yes - this is shown by the experience of the Great Patriotic War, but for 1935-1936. It seemed like enough.

          In the second half of the 30s, there is a sufficient number of Mark 37 directors to solve air defense problems - 1 director for 4-6 5 "/ 38 barrels. If you make a CD that is sharpened for solving air defense problems, then you need to focus on air defense" big pots "- and there are 4 directors for 10 pairs ..
          Quote: Constanty
          Anyway, when you look at HMS Coventry, no doubt rebuilt into an air defense cruiser, he did not have more / much more command and control personnel / main command directors

          This is a rework. In which the number of weapons and SUAO was determined by the available stocks of masses and volumes of the already built ship.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 1 December 2020 20: 38
            0
            We're talking about the Americans - who had Omaha-type scouts as the only interwar RCs with TA (before Atlant). And that's all - not a single CR torpedo tubes received. Although all over the world they were pushed anywhere.

            It is not clear from your previous entry that this only applies to Americans. In addition, TA also had KR type Pensacola, Northampton

            In the USS Atlanta, the number of weapons and SUAO was also determined by the available mass and volume of the ship. As on any ship. It is also always a compromise. They needed strong weapons, they donated them.
            Note that the Junneau class air defense cruisers, where the power of aviation was already known, did not change much.

            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 32
              0
              Quote: Constanty
              It is not clear from your previous entry that this only applies to Americans. In addition, TA also had KR type Pensacola, Northampton

              Only they were removed almost immediately after commissioning.

              Quote: Constanty
              Note that the Junneau class air defense cruisers, where the power of aviation was already known, did not change much.

              They strengthened the MZA ...
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 1 December 2020 22: 04
                0
                Which does not change the fact that they were on them, so the statement that apart from OMAH they were only at KP Atlanta is not true.

                MZA also require efficiency - without them, their assembly will be as ineffective as on Japanese ships. So after the increase in MZA, the amount of efficiency on the ships, which the Americans undoubtedly attributed to the CLAA, turned out to be insufficient. And yet they are considered CLAA
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 23: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Constanty
                  So after the increase in MZA, the amount of efficiency on the ships, which the Americans undoubtedly attributed to the CLAA, turned out to be insufficient.

                  I suggest. Google "Director Mk-51"
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 1 December 2020 23: 18
                    0
                    In fact - my mistake - added 4 x Mk 57 and 10 x Mk 51
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 2 December 2020 11: 07
              0
              Quote: Constanty
              It is not clear from your previous entry that this only applies to Americans. In addition, TA also had KR type Pensacola, Northampton

              So "Pepsi-Cola" was also originally a light cruiser - scout. smile
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 2 December 2020 11: 37
                0
                I can even call myself a ballerina, but that does not mean that I really am her laughing
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 2 December 2020 14: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Constanty
                  I can even call myself a ballerina, but that does not mean that I really am her laughing

                  The funny thing is that in the case of Pensacall and the Northamptons, the original classification was CL - coincided with the actual state of affairs. The Americans looked at things quite soberly and understood perfectly well that a KR with armor that absolutely did not provide protection of HHC from 8 "shells, heavy cannot be considered.
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 2 December 2020 15: 04
                    0
                    To be precise, the actual division into heavy (A) and light (B) cruisers was only introduced in 1930. Prior to that, ships with a displacement of up to 10 thousand tons and guns up to 203 mm were just cruisers.
                    The cruisers Pensacola were built according to the then ideas about their use as long-range reconnaissance of the fleet.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 2 December 2020 16: 19
                      0
                      Quote: Constanty
                      To be precise, the actual division into heavy (A) and light (B) cruisers was only introduced in 1930. Prior to that, ships with a displacement of up to 10 thousand tons and guns up to 203 mm were just cruisers.

                      The first officially light cruisers (CL) appeared in the USN in 1920 - the Chester-class CR was reclassified into this class.
    4. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 18
      +1
      Quote: Constanty
      The first were the British cruisers of the "Dido" class

      The Dido were not air defense cruisers ...
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 December 2020 20: 06
        +1
        Among the requirements of the Admiralty, in addition to supporting and countering the destroyers, was the provision of air defense for the main forces of the fleet.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 20: 22
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Among the requirements of the Admiralty, in addition to supporting and countering the destroyers, was the provision of air defense for the main forces of the fleet.

          For this reason, it was necessary to "pervert" with the 133-mm, not to work on the modernization of the "Aretyuz" project.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 14
            -1
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            For this reason, it was necessary to "pervert" with the 133-mm, not to work on the modernization of the "Aretyuz" project.

            Well, in that sense, the British are doing it. 5,25 tool as a universal one is still a gift.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 1 December 2020 12: 24
    0
    The author would say B and compare with the British Dido, which, by the way, were also not originally intended specifically for air defense
    Maybe in the comments we'll do
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 14: 28
      -1
      Quote: Engineer
      compare with the British Dido who

      Are you again with your provocations?

      Let's better compare with Vanguard wassat

      Seriously though, the Dido of the 40th year is already the last Bellona (Royalist), this type was no longer laid. There are noticeably fewer large-caliber ones, the average aura is noticeably stronger, on the whole, a completely correct emphasis on improving the LMS.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 1 December 2020 14: 55
        0
        I would say who is the main provocateur here, but again they will say about the transition to personalities ...
        Let's better compare with Vanguard

        Yes, even with Spit

        The proposal was without a second thought. For someone like Macsen_Wledig if interested
        For example artu and LMS. Radar
        I have no opinion on who is better at the moment.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 15: 07
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          For example artu and LMS. Radar

          There the devil himself will break his leg. Still, it was constantly being finished. As already correctly said above, the 42nd is one thing, no radars, no fuses, the 45th is another.

          But in fact, neither one nor the other cruiser is of particular interest. The British focused on Fiji, the Americans sawed cleaves.
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 23
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          I have no opinion on who is better at the moment.

          Yes, both are worthless. Only each in his own way. :)
        3. unknown
          unknown 1 December 2020 20: 22
          +1
          The British were wrong with the caliber. 133 mm is certainly good for destroyers. But how is the anti-aircraft? The projectile is heavy - 36,5 kg. Too much. Even for Europeans. The first bell sounded during the Russo-Japanese War. For the Japanese, whose mass, on average, is less than the mass of a European by 10-20 kg, the 6 "projectile turned out to be very heavy. The mass of the projectile is 45 kg. As soon as the British had a 140 mm caliber, the Japanese switched to it. The second bell sounded during the first Already the British came to the conclusion that the 6 "shell is heavy when manually loaded and for Europeans. And they planned to switch to a caliber of 140 mm. Projectile weight - 38 kg.
          At the beginning of work on the first light post-war cruiser of the "Leander" type, the question was decided which is better: 140 mm for manual loading, or 6 "in towers, for automated loading.
          The mass of projectiles of calibers 133 mm and 140 mm are close. According to the results of the Second World War, they came to the conclusion that the most optimal mass of a projectile for manual loading is the mass of projectiles for 114mm - 127mm guns. The British should have stopped at the 114 mm caliber. But, with separate ammunition. Unitar is heavy and with this caliber.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 07
            +1
            Quote: ignoto
            The British should have stopped at the 114 mm caliber.

            On the other hand, it is not for nothing that the British called "Scylla" and "Charybdis" "toothless horrors" ... :)
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 17
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            Unitar is heavy and with this caliber.

            Everything is simpler. The maximum weight of ammunition for manual loading in unfavorable conditions (rolling, jerking, cramped conditions, high loading angles) is approximately 25 kg. For a unitar it is about 90 mm, for a separate unit it is about 4,5-5 ". This is no longer a good thing. It also applies to tanks.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 1 December 2020 12: 55
    0
    The Angdians had a similar one CL Dido
  • Undecim
    Undecim 1 December 2020 16: 01
    +4
    but excuse me, what air defense ships in 1936?
    We will not forgive. As one famous Italian monk Giordano Bruno said, ignorance is the best science in the world, it is given without difficulty and does not sadden the soul.

    Romanian armored cruiser Elisabeta built in 1887. After the outbreak of the First World War, four of its 75 mm Saint-Chamond cannons were adapted for "antiaircraft" and the ship served as an air defense base in Sulin throughout the war. Moreover, it performed successfully, shooting down the German Friedrichshafen FF.1917 in the spring of 33.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 1 December 2020 16: 14
      +5
      And in 1935, the British converted the C-class light cruiser Coventry and Curlew into an air defense cruiser, removing all 152 mm guns from them and installing ten 102 mm anti-aircraft guns instead.

      This is how the cruiser Coventry looked before the rebuild.

      And so after.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 1 December 2020 17: 04
    +2
    I didn't like the article. But the ship (regardless of the classification of KRL / Leader / KR air defense) is good. The artillery solution is original, in the spirit of the search for the American dream! The discussion in the comments is interesting, but for some reason no one compared the weight of the onboard minute salvo of the main calibers of the compared ships. An unexpected decision on armor - 95 mm! This is at best from 88-100-mm shells, but there were no opponents with such a caliber. But what about the all-or-nothing principle? And also thinning down to 28 mm at the bottom? In my opinion, for any cruiser of those times, armor less than 100 mm is generally meaningless. Well, as a joke of humor, I imagined an alternative reality, a Soviet ship in the case of a destroyer pr 956 with eight AK-130 turrets! ... They also offered a caliber of 133 mm ... am
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 1 December 2020 17: 15
      +1
      Will it not fall apart? This is your Soviet destroyer.
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      An unexpected decision on armor - 95 mm! This is at best from 88-100-mm shells, but there were no opponents with such a caliber.

      It was assumed that the enemy would be mainly destroyers or ships firing at destroyers, which means land mines .
      And according to the data of German shots of homogeneous armor from a distance of more than 8000 m, homogeneous armor of the Wh type was not broken even by a 283-mm land mine.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 1 December 2020 23: 23
        0
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        And according to the data of German shots of homogeneous armor from a distance of more than 8000 m, homogeneous armor of the Wh type was not broken even by a 283-mm land mine.

        And what thickness of homogeneous armor did not even break through a German 283 mm land mine? :)
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 18: 53
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          And what thickness of homogeneous armor did not even break through a German 283 mm land mine? :)

          Ay, sorry ... :)
          80 mm Wh
      2. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 2 December 2020 14: 25
        +1
        Generally this refers to tangential hits. A conditional hit close to normal gives 1/2 - 2/3 caliber homogeneous armor for main battery dreadnoughts.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 18: 54
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Actually, this refers to tangential hits.

          The Germans were just firing at the normal with fgas with a head fuse.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 2 December 2020 23: 23
            0
            The Germans, as I recall, were the first to come up with the 1/2 caliber rule. At a speed even slightly higher than the speed of sound, due to the mass, it must break through.

            In 1939, at La Plata, Exeter easily punched its 203 mm to the unfortunate Spee and a 100 mm board and an additional 40 mm bulkhead, moreover, 12 km somewhere.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 3 December 2020 18: 55
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              The Germans, as I recall, were the first to come up with the 1/2 caliber rule.

              I don't seem to mind, but I just gave the German data ...
              The funny thing is that they were indirectly confirmed by our artillerymen after the "excursion" to Germany: in the report they wrote something like this: a land mine of this design and such high explosiveness should penetrate armor of at least 1/2 caliber, and it barely penetrates 1/4

              Quote: Saxahorse
              In 1939, at La Plata, Exeter easily punched its 203 mm to the unfortunate Spee and a 100 mm board and an additional 40 mm bulkhead, moreover, 12 km somewhere.

              There was still BB. And the penetration of the belt was "not clean", the shell hit the upper edge and pulled out a piece of the slab.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 3 December 2020 23: 32
                0
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                There was still BB.

                Exeter had no BB. SAPC is semi-armor-piercing and has the same weight as a land mine. Well, at such a distance of 70-80 kb, there is no difference, all the same, the speed is already only 350-400 m / s, here the advantage in strength no longer plays a role.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 10: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Exeter had no BB. SAPC is semi-armor-piercing and has the same weight as a land mine.

                  And the fuse?
                  One thing is bottom with a delay, another is head instant action.
                  By the way, according to British calculations, SAPC pierced 100 mm from 19200 yards, so that for 12 km it had enough energy after breaking through the belt.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 4 December 2020 22: 52
                    0
                    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                    By the way, according to British calculations, SAPC pierced 100 mm from 19200 yards, so that for 12 km it had enough energy after breaking through the belt.

                    Then what are we arguing about? laughing

                    That’s what I’m talking about, 1/2 caliber is quite enough for penetration. Some 80 mm of armor cannot be considered sufficient protection against an 11 "shell.
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 5 December 2020 10: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      That's what I'm talking about,

                      Well, one cannot compare a semi-armor-piercing with a bottom fuse and a "classic" land mine with a head one.
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 5 December 2020 22: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        Well, one cannot compare a semi-armor-piercing with a bottom fuse and a "classic" land mine with a head one.

                        I don’t remember the "classic" land mines in naval artillery. The same British landmines are quite brutal and, for example, do not differ much from the Russian semi-armor-piercing model of 1915.

                        Let me remind you once again that at low speeds there is almost no difference in the strength of a ship's land mine and a semi-armor-piercing one. The curiosity you mentioned apparently refers to the hit of a howitzer or mortar shell, really rather thin-walled.
                      2. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 6 December 2020 14: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I don’t remember the "classic" land mines in naval artillery.

                        We all had ... If it is really necessary, I can throw in drawings / diagrams ...
                        Here is an example ...


                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        The curiosity you mentioned apparently refers to the hit of a howitzer or mortar shell, which is really quite thin-walled.

                        What "funny thing" are you talking about now?
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 6 December 2020 20: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        What "funny thing" are you talking about now?

                        About the non-penetration of 280 mm by a projectile of 80 mm of armor. You cannot call it otherwise as a joke or a curiosity :)
                      4. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 6 December 2020 20: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        About the non-penetration of 280 mm by a projectile of 80 mm of armor. You cannot call it otherwise as a joke or a curiosity :)

                        Official data of the armor sharps at the Meppen training ground, from a Soviet secret document.
                      5. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 6 December 2020 21: 27
                        0
                        I have not seen any secret German tables. :)

                        But for example, for the classic Soviet high-explosive projectile 53-OF-530 of the D-1 howitzer (152mm), penetration of 85-90 mm on armored vehicles is declared. This is even better than the 1/2 caliber declared by the Germans.
                      6. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 6 December 2020 21: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I have not seen any secret German tables. :)

                        It has not been secret for 75 years. :)
                        This trouble is even on the network ...
                        Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschosswahl.
                        Look for the first part - Heft a Textband
                      7. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 7 December 2020 22: 36
                        0
                        The very first sign that came across: "TECHNICAL REPORT No. 372-45
                        GERMAN FIRE EFFECT TABLES August 1945 "

                        We can immediately admire the diameter of a hole from 28 cm of a land mine in 80 mm armor - 600 mm. laughing
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 3 December 2020 10: 29
    +1
    Impulse conservation law + fraction of the explosion impulse. With a tangent, the first component decreases dramatically.
    The Germans themselves, developing the concept of a reservation system for battleships D and E, counted on 330-mm belt armor against 320-mm armor-piercing shells, and 220-mm against high-explosive shells.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 3 December 2020 19: 03
      0
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      The Germans themselves, developing the concept of a reservation system for battleships D and E, counted on 330-mm belt armor against 320-mm armor-piercing shells, and 220-mm against high-explosive shells.

      And where do such firewood come from?
      Wheatley, for example, writes that a 320 mm belt did not fit in weight, so they limited themselves to 220 mm, which provided full protection against 330 mm land mines and 203 mm armor-piercing ones.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 4 December 2020 12: 52
        +1
        A. Malov, S. Patyanin, S. Suliga "Battleships of the Fuhrer" 2008
        The curves of armor penetration according to E.A. Berkalov, cited in the monograph by S. Vinogradov "The Last Giants of the Russian Imperial Fleet".
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 13: 21
          0
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          A. Malov, S. Patyanin, S. Suliga "Battleships of the Fuhrer" 2008

          I'll have to ask Arseny what he meant and where he got it ...

          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          The curves of armor penetration according to E.A. Berkalov,

          And for which shells?
          If for Russian land mines WWI period - this is not the coat
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 4 December 2020 13: 48
            -1
            Why not?
            The detonator is the lead one, the relative mass, though more, but the speed is less, the explosives are comparable. It's a pity I can't insert a picture.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 13: 55
              0
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              It's a pity I can't insert a picture.

              And tell me the number of the page - I'll see what kind of shell there is.
              1. Victor Leningradets
                Victor Leningradets 4 December 2020 14: 10
                0
                Chapter 5. There are no more tips. On a computer, a chuto-version without numbering.
                All three types of shells are considered there.
              2. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 14: 22
                0
                Thank you, I looked ...
                One problem: the type of shell is not specified exactly.
                Here are 14 "shells for" Izmail "(Picture from MK by Vinogradov).
                That's why I spoke for the wrong coat.
              3. Victor Leningradets
                Victor Leningradets 4 December 2020 14: 31
                0
                Hmmm, bottom fuse.
                Your version is indirectly confirmed by the low armor penetration of high-explosive bombs, but they have a rather low speed of meeting the target.
              4. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 14: 37
                0
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Hmmm, bottom fuse.

                After Tsushima, the RIF had a specific concept of a high-explosive projectile.
                In the USSR, they were "retrained" into semi-armor-piercing ...
                Such as...
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 4 December 2020 22: 54
        0
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        Fuse - head, relative mass, though more,

        And exactly the head?
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 4 December 2020 22: 55
          0
          I saw the breakdown below. I remove the question :)
  • unknown
    unknown 1 December 2020 20: 28
    0
    Based on the analysis of the results of battles at sea during the Second World War, some researchers came to the conclusion that the priority was not onboard, but on deck armor. If our author gets to articles about other types of American heavy cruisers, it will be interesting to analyze the result of the battle near Savo Island, in which representatives of different generations of heavy cruisers died.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 20: 35
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Based on the analysis of the results of battles at sea during the Second World War, some researchers came to the conclusion that the priority was not onboard, but on deck armor.

      Naturally, that's why aviation suddenly appeared ... :)

      Quote: ignoto
      Battle of Savo Island

      You, as I understand it, about the very first: August 8-9?
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 December 2020 20: 58
        0
        Exactly about him.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 19
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Exactly about him.

          I read the post-war reflections of the American "emergency workers", so they swore that if the 1st Savo had happened in the 44th, they would have saved Astoria
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 18
        -1
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Naturally, that's why aviation suddenly appeared ... :)

        And the progress of the MSA, the increase in distance.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 25
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And the progress of the MSA, the increase in distance.

          In WWII there was one battle at an over 25 km distance - this is a battle near Samara.
          And then this is LK. And on a cruiser, you certainly cannot stick such deck armor that it withstands a 16 "blank from 25-27 km.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 December 2020 11: 14
    +1
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    Well, as a joke of humor, I imagined an alternative reality of a Soviet ship in the hull of a destroyer pr 956 with eight AK-130 turrets!

    You are joking, but the MLK with four four-gun 130-mm universal turrets has reached the preliminary design. smile
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 2 December 2020 21: 53
      0
      As one of eight options - six with 130 mm main battery, and two with 152 mm main battery.
  • deddem
    deddem 2 December 2020 16: 17
    0
    IMHO, all these Atlantes and Dildas, being interesting ships, are bad because they took the resource away from the destroyers.
    Yes, the unit cost per main battery barrel is slightly lower, but the cruiser, unlike the troika of destroyers, cannot be dispersed on different missions, and it looks gloomier in the loss summary.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 19: 20
      0
      Quote: deddem
      IMHO, all these Atlantes and Dildas, being interesting ships, are bad because they took the resource away from the destroyers.

      The trouble is that destroyers have many limitations: in terms of survivability, seaworthiness, armament ...
  • DimanC
    DimanC 1 December 2020 18: 41
    0
    Author, you have already decided whether to write the names of the ships in Russian or in English. Once there is Military Review, let everything be uniform.
  • unknown
    unknown 1 December 2020 20: 42
    +1
    In fact, the best type of cruiser that met the limitations of the London Agreement was La Galissonniere. Standard displacement 7600 tons. Armor weight 1460 tons. Armament 9 * 152 mm. Good displacement reserve for modernization. Only ships were built under the 1931 program. That is, before ...
    And the British with their "Colonies" flew by. We tried to shove in something unpushy. As a result, they fell out for 8500 tons. Further, more. There is no reserve for modernization. The stability was also not quite in line with British standards. As a result, in the next series, the fourth tower had to be abandoned, and the hull width had to be increased as well. The standard displacement exceeded 9000 tons.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 10
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Only ships were built under the 1931 program. That is, before ...

      Until what? Until 2nd London?
      1. unknown
        unknown 4 December 2020 18: 30
        -1
        Yes. Until Second London.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 21: 26
      -1
      Quote: ignoto
      In fact, the best type of cruiser that met the limitations of the London Agreement was La Galissonniere.

      For the 30s, definitely. Not a fact for the 40s. At least the LMS / air defense was cut, which partly began to be done in the 40th.
      Quote: ignoto
      The standard displacement exceeded 9000 tons.

      The second series of the Colony was almost the perfect WWII KRL.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 1 December 2020 21: 56
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The second series of the Colony was almost the perfect WWII KRL.

        Then "Mirotavr-Swiftshur" ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 December 2020 22: 10
          0
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Then "Mirotavr-Swiftshur" ...

          Somehow, out of habit, he thought that he did not have time. But no, the ship fired at MOT, so yes, I agree with you.
      2. unknown
        unknown 4 December 2020 18: 31
        -1
        No headroom. Stability problems persisted.
        And the Frenchman has great potential for modernization.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 4 December 2020 20: 03
          0
          Do you have data on displacement after modernization?
          1. unknown
            unknown 6 December 2020 08: 15
            -1
            Patyanin writes that the total displacement of the three cruisers, which underwent a major modernization in the United States, reached 10850 tons. The initial full displacement was 9100 tons. At the same time, the cruisers kept the speed up to 32 knots.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 6 December 2020 14: 36
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              Initial full - 9100 tons.

              Almost 2000 gained ...
              That is, it turns out, whatever one may say, something less sane for WWII conditions fits no less than 9000 ... 9500 tons, that is, in the same "Swiftshur".
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 4 December 2020 21: 58
          0
          The Frenchman has great potential to make a new ship based on his motives. Which was partly done. I also like the French, surprisingly many beautiful ships, unlike the Americans, but you shouldn't forget that La Galissonniere is from the early 30s. By the 40s, a lot of things need to be redone, and if you don't have aunts an extra fourth tower - you cannot exchange it for strengthening other aspects.

          So, according to the principle "to sell something unnecessary, you need to buy something unnecessary," I would still undertake to modernize Brooklyn, there is a hell of a lot to throw out))) Although, of course, the American ship is not just not beautiful, but a show trial of the Swanson-Standley pest gang would be one of the incriminating evidence. I can not imagine any reason other than black hatred of America and its people to build even one such ship, let alone nine.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 5 December 2020 10: 56
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            By the 40s, a lot of things need to be redone, and if you do not have an extra fourth tower aunt, you cannot exchange it for strengthening other aspects.

            In general, you can look at the De Grasse project and estimate where the French were thinking.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 5 December 2020 15: 29
              -1
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              In general, you can look at the De Grasse project and estimate

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The Frenchman has great potential to make a new ship based on his motives. Which was partly done.

              Ugums. And I would not say that the De Grasse of the original project is an ideal WWII cruiser, either in the Mediterranean or in MOT. Air defense to do completely anew. Universal 6 "is just stupidity, alas, widespread in those years, but especially loved by the French.

              Yes, and such French chips as the two-shaft power plant look good in peacetime, but I don’t know in war.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 5 December 2020 15: 47
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                And I would not say that the De Grasse of the original project is an ideal WWII cruiser, either in the Mediterranean or in MOT.

                I'm actually talking about the potential for modernization ...
                After all, now, for the most part, he is the fruit of the aftermath.
                And then they thought quite differently: from “Brooklyn” “Cleveland” grew, from “La Galissonier” - “De Grasse”, from “Algerie” - “Saint-Louis”, etc.
          2. unknown
            unknown 6 December 2020 08: 23
            -1
            During the modernization in the United States, the total displacement of the French increased by 1750 tons.
            At the same time, the high speed remained, up to 32 knots.
            For example. When modernizing cruisers of the "Town" type, which initially had a larger standard displacement of 9100 tons versus 7600 tons from the French, the fourth turret had to be removed.
            The displacement of the British after modernization increased by about 1000 tons.
            This comparison may indicate that the French are initially underutilized, therefore. they have more modernization reserves.
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 6 December 2020 14: 54
              0
              Quote: ignoto
              At the same time, the high speed remained, up to 32 knots.

              This is an interesting question.
              Because the French themselves write that even in the original project, the full stroke was 31 knots, and the long-term one was 30.

              Quote: ignoto
              When upgrading the town-class cruisers, which initially had a larger standard displacement of 9100 tons versus 7600 tons for the French, the fourth turret had to be removed.

              If you believe Raven and Roberts, the logic was different: large-scale naval battles are no longer expected, and you cannot hide from aviation. Taking into account the fact that the deck of the British KRL was cramped, I had to sacrifice something ...

              Quote: ignoto
              This comparison may indicate that the French are initially underutilized, therefore. they have more modernization reserves.

              Very optional ...
              In addition, the "Saigo Reserve", which the French put into all ships, could play a role here so that they could operate in the deltas of Indochina rivers.
    3. deddem
      deddem 2 December 2020 16: 23
      0
      And the British with their "Colonies" flew by. We tried to shove in something unpushy. As a result, they fell out for 8500 tons.


      ... and so we smoothly come to the idea that the ideal option would be a 10000 tonne with a six-inch main body.
      The most tragicomic thing is that such cruisers would have been, without the stupid division into KRL and KRT, if it had not been for the British cramming into the Washington agreements, out of their petty momentary considerations, of an eight-inch caliber.
      In general, "the Englishwoman shit" (tm)
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 2 December 2020 19: 19
        0
        Quote: deddem
        The most tragicomic thing is that such cruisers would have been, without the stupid division into KRL and KRT, if it had not been for the British cramming into the Washington agreements, out of their petty momentary considerations, of an eight-inch caliber.

        Very doubtful.
        Most likely, without Washington, there would be two polar projects in the cruising class: conditionally a 25-30 kt MRT with a 10-12 GK (something like Alaska, Kronstadt, 1047) and a 5-7 squadron cruiser kt with 6 "GK.
        1. deddem
          deddem 3 December 2020 11: 52
          0
          Most likely, without Washington, there would be two polar projects in the cruising class: conditionally a 25-30 kt MRT with a 10-12 GK (something like Alaska, Kronstadt, 1047) and a 5-7 squadron cruiser kt with 6 "GK.


          Without Washington, yes, this is the most logical option.

          I mean, if in Washington, the British would not have pushed 203 mm for cruisers, and the limit would have been 10 kt and 160 mm main battery, as originally intended.
        2. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 3 December 2020 13: 22
          0
          I'm afraid you are close to the truth, but only partially.
          A super heavy cruiser (in reality represented only by Alaska and Guam) could only be afforded by members of the "battleship club" + the USSR. But then - many countries could either build or order two options for themselves:
          1. Cruiser of the first rank 12 - 15 150 - 155 mm guns or fewer 180 - 203 mm guns, armor from 152 mm guns and 250 kg of aerial bombs.
          2. Cruiser of the second rank 8 - 9 guns of caliber 150-155 mm, protection against 120 - 130 mm guns.
          The first type is for squadron service, the second is for light forces.
      2. unknown
        unknown 4 December 2020 18: 36
        -1
        You can start with 9000 tons and then, incrementally, up to 11000 tons.
        Southampton
        "Giuseppe Garibaldi",
        Brooklyn
        Cleveland.
  • lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 2 December 2020 08: 02
    +1
    Interesting article! It is a pity that the combat path is not disclosed wider, and I would like a photo for more. But these are the articles that brought me to the site.
  • HB101
    HB101 2 December 2020 14: 11
    0
    Strange boat, but beautiful
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 2 December 2020 21: 45
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Complete shit. The Americans' perceptions of long-range air defense were frankly perverted.


    For one downed plane, according to statistics from 1942 until the end of the war:

    https://vova-modelist.livejournal.com/220374.html

    There were 627 5 "shells with a remote fuse, and 366 5" shells with a radio fuse each. Has anyone got better statistics on long-range artillery air defense of ships? Who?
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 10 January 2021 21: 37
    0
    The hull lines are reminiscent of our BODs and destroyers of the 60s and 70s - a smooth takeoff of the side from the middle to the bow.