Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. Crafty British gentlemen

168
Yes, oh, those British gentlemen! How, scoundrels, changed the rules of the game when they started losing the game! But how great they did it!


Our today's история - a history of not giving a damn about all these treaties, Washington and London combined, which, however, gave birth to very, very good ships.

Combat ships. Cruisers. Crafty British gentlemen

It will be about the Southampton-class cruisers. Five light cruisers of this type were built, and they plowed the war, as they say, "from bell to bell." And four out of five ended the war. And after the war they served in full, and the last, the most famous, perhaps, "Sheffield", was dismantled for metal in 1968. However - the career was successful ...

So, "Southamptons" - this is the first series of ships of the "Town" class, which rushed to design, after learning that the insidious Japanese built "Mogami".


15 barrels of 155-mm - and the British realized that if they had to (but had to in the end!) Collide somewhere in the area of ​​the colonies, then the British light cruisers of the "Linder" class with their 8 152-mm guns simply would not have a chance ... I don’t even want to remember the "Aretyuzas" with their six 152-mm guns.

In general, a defender was urgently needed. Because intelligence reported that the Japanese were going to build a dozen ships of the Mogami class, respectively, the British needed to have two dozen (or even more) of the same Linders in order to somehow resist.

Britain could not afford that many cruisers, despite the fact that they had a large number of colonies in the region where Japan was salivating and would still have to protect them.

In general, no matter how much the Lords of the Admiralty would like to build cheap "Aretyuses", alas, they had to strain both the budget and the designers. Because 35 knots on which the Mogami and its 15 155-mm barrels could go was very unpleasant to understand. The lords understood, the admirals howled and demanded money for ships. The plans were revised on the go. When necessary, the British forgot about conservatism and began to tear and throw.

Actually, this is how empires were built. And in empires, cruisers and battleships were built to protect the interests of empires.


And in 1933 Great Britain rushed to develop a cruiser with 12 152-mm guns. Vertical armor was supposed to hold 152-mm shells at all distances, horizontal protection of the cellars - up to 105 cables, protection of the power plant - up to 80 cables.

It was also believed that a good cruiser must carry a squadron (okay, half) of seaplanes. 3 to 5 pieces.

The cruising range had to be no less than that of the "Linder", otherwise there was no point at all to fence the garden, but the speed was allowed to be reduced - 30 knots.

Everything looks strange with speed. If we are talking about the fact that the new cruisers were supposed to oppose the Mogami, then as if for this they should have been able to do two things:
- catch up with "Mogami" if necessary;
- if necessary, get away from the same "Mogami".
How to do this with a difference of 5 knots is not clear, to put it mildly.

Nevertheless, the work began. In order not to waste time on development "from scratch", it was decided to take the cruiser "Amfion" as a basis. This is an improved version of the Linder, which could be expanded without much effort to install three-gun turrets instead of the standard two-gun turrets.

As a result of the work, a project of a cruiser was obtained, which was armed with 4 x 3 152-mm guns, 3 x 2 102-mm anti-aircraft guns, 3 x 4 12,7-mm machine guns, 2 x 3 533-mm torpedo tubes and from 3 to 5 aircraft ...

Reservation consisted of a 127-mm belt, a 31-mm deck above the power plant and a 51-mm above the ammunition cellars. Standard displacement ranged from 7 to 800 tons, speed - from 8 to 835 knots.

In total, four projects were submitted, which did not differ much from each other. With the exception of the number of aircraft deployed on the ship and the auxiliary caliber guns, all four designs met the requirements set by the Admiralty. The most difficult option was taken as a basis.

As a result, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that 32 knots is the minimum minimum that a cruiser should have. Better still.


In addition, as soon as the project was approved, rework began. First, the number of aircraft was reduced to three. The rotary catapult was replaced with a fixed one, which was located across the deck. We decided that it would be easier to turn the cruiser, but save weight.

It was decided to strengthen the anti-aircraft armament with two quadruple 40-mm pom-pom mounts, another twin 102-mm gun mount, and a second anti-aircraft director for control.

The displacement is expected to have increased to 9 tons. Already not quite a light cruiser, but also not a heavy one, which started from 110 tons. But everything was ahead ...

In 1934, construction began on the first two ships, which were given the names "Minotaur" and "Polyphemus". However, after a while, the Admiralty decided to give the entire series names in honor of British cities, and these ships were renamed Southampton and Newcastle. The next three cruisers were named Sheffield, Glasgow and Birmingham.

During the construction of the ships, slight changes were made to the design, such as an increase in fuel tanks, the installation of a third anti-aircraft director. However, the ships entered service even with a slight underload in displacement.

The real displacement of the Southampton was 9090 tons, Newcastle - 9083 tons, Sheffield - 9070 tons, Glasgow - 9020 tons, Birmingham - 9394 tons.


This provided a very good opportunity for maneuvering the armament and equipment of ships.

This primarily affected the booking. Compared to the Amfion, it was increased. Increased the length and thickness of the armor belt. Now the armored belt covered not only the power plant and artillery cellars, but also the anti-aircraft artillery ammunition cellars. The central post was also protected.

A belt of 114-mm cemented armor dropped 0,91 m below the waterline, and reached the main deck in height. The belt was closed with a 63-mm traverse, and a 32-mm armored deck was superimposed on top, which went from the cellars of tower A to the tiller compartment.

The artillery cellars looked like a box with a 114-mm-thick wall.
Towers and barbets were a weak point, as their armor was only 25 mm thick.
For the rest, the cruisers could be considered completely protected ships. The total weight of the armor was 1431 tons, or 15,7% of the standard displacement.

The power plant consisted of standard boilers and TZA of the Admiralty type, with a total capacity of 78 hp. On trials, Southampton reached a speed of 600 knots, and with a full load of 33 tons, 10 knots.

The volume of the fuel tanks made it possible to take 2 tons of oil and travel 060 miles on this quantity at a speed of 7 knots.

The crew consisted of 748 people, the number on the flagship was 796 people.

Armament.

Southampton became the first British cruiser to be fitted with the new three-gun turret mounts Mk.XXII, albeit with the old 152mm / 50 Mk.XXIII guns. They had a high degree of automation, which in theory provided a very decent rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute. In fact, the combat rate of fire was no more than 6 rounds per minute.


The maximum elevation angle of the barrels was 45 degrees, which provided a firing range of 23,2 km. The initial velocity of the projectile is 841 m / s, armor penetration at a distance of 11 km - 76 mm of armor, at a distance of 20 km - 51 mm.

A noticeable feature of all British three-gun turrets, including on subsequent cruisers, was the shift of the middle barrel by 76 cm back. This was done in order to eliminate the mutual influence of muzzle gases during a salvo and to prevent the dispersion of shells when fired.

Auxiliary artillery

The long-range anti-aircraft artillery was exactly the same as on the cruisers of the previous series, that is, eight 102-mm Mk.XVI guns in four twin Mk.XIX mounts.


The combat rate of fire of these guns is 15-20 rounds per minute, the muzzle velocity is 811 m / s, the firing range at an elevation angle of 45 degrees is 18,15 km, and at an elevation angle of 80 degrees - 11,89 km.

Melee anti-aircraft artillery in the form of two 40-mm Vicker Mk VII quad assault rifles mounted on the roofs of aircraft hangars on light cruisers appeared for the first time.

40-mm QF 2 pdr Mk VIII guns fired at a range of 347 to 4,57 km, depending on the type of ammunition.


The initial flight speed of the projectile ranged from 585 to 700 m / s, vertical guidance angles from
-10 to +80 degrees.

12,7 mm Vickers machine guns in quad mounts


Mine torpedo armament

Two three-pipe 533-mm torpedo tubes were located on the upper deck between 102-mm mounts.

Aviation Armament

The cruisers were equipped with D-IH-type transverse deck catapults and could receive up to three Supermarine Walrus seaplanes (two for hangars, one for a catapult), but most often only two were taken at sea.


Naturally, as soon as the ships entered service, the cruiser modernization programs began.

Southampton received a Type 1940 radar in May 279.

"Newcastle". It turned out interesting. First, in May 1940, two 20-barrel launchers of unguided rockets UP were mounted on the cruiser. In May 1941, the ship received a type 286 radar. In November 1941, rocket launchers, quad 12,7-mm machine guns, a type 286 radar were removed from the cruiser. Instead, they installed 5 single-barrel 20-mm Oerlikon assault rifles and two radars, type 273 and type 291 ...


At the end of 1942, the catapult, hangars and aircraft were removed from the cruiser, aviation and radar type 291 were removed. Instead, 10 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikon assault rifles and radars of types 281, 282, 284 and 285 were installed. In September 1943, 6 20-mm assault rifles were replaced by 4 paired installations of 20-mm machine guns of the same Oerlikon.

"Sheffield" already in August 1938 was equipped with an experimental prototype radar type 79Y. The ability to use the radar was very useful to the crew in the ensuing war.

In September 1941, instead of 12,7-mm machine guns, they installed 6 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikon assault rifles and radar types 284 and 285. In mid-1942, the radar type 279 was replaced with a whole set of radars: types 281, 282, 283 and 273. In the spring of 1943 installed another 8 single-barreled 20-mm machine guns.

In January 1944, all aviation equipment was dismantled from Sheffield and 8 more Oerlikon assault rifles were installed in its place. During the overhaul in 1944-45, one artillery turret was removed from the cruiser and 4 quad 40-mm installations from Bofors were installed in its place, and 15 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikons were replaced with 10 twin installations of the same company. The radar type 273 was replaced with a newer type 277.


"Bofors"

"Glasgow" in July 1940 received a type 286 radar and two 20-barrel NUR UP installations. In the summer of 1941, the rocket launchers were removed. In the summer of 1942, 12,7-mm machine guns and type 286 radars were removed, instead of them, 9 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikon assault rifles and radars of types 281, 282, 284, 285 and 273 were installed. In December of the same year, 5 single-barreled 20-mm machines were replaced by 8 paired installations.

In October 1943, 2 more single-barreled 20-mm assault rifles were added, by the end of 1944 - four more. During the overhaul in 1944-45, the main engine turret, aviation equipment, 2 paired and 4 single-barreled 20-mm assault rifles, radar types 281, 284, 273 were dismantled. Instead of this equipment, 2 quadruple and 4 single-barreled 40-mm Bofors assault rifles were installed and radar types 281b, 294, 274.

Birmingham received one UP 1940-barreled rocket launcher in June 20, which was dismantled in July 1941. In March 1942, instead of 12,7-mm machine guns, 7 single-barreled 20-mm "Erlikons" and radars of types 291 and 284 were installed. In the summer of 1943, aviation equipment was dismantled, 5 single-barreled machine guns were replaced with 8 twin 20-mm installations, and radar type 291 replaced by radars types 281b and 273.

At the end of 1944 the turret was removed, 4 quad 40-mm Bofors mounts, 2 twin and 7 single-barreled 20-mm assault rifles were installed.

It is logical that the total displacement of the cruisers by the end of the war had increased to 12 - 190 tons. For comparison, the Hawkins-class heavy cruiser had a displacement of 12 tons. Yes, the difference between the old heavy cruiser and the new light cruiser was not very significant, despite all the limitations.

Combat application

Southampton


At the beginning of the war, he took part in search operations in the Atlantic, together with the destroyers Jervis and Jersey he sank the German steamer Melkenbur.

He took part in the Norwegian operation, covered the actions of the destroyers, was hit by a 500-kg bomb, which did no harm and came under attack by a German submarine, but the torpedoes did not explode due to a defect.

He was transferred to the Mediterranean, where he covered convoys to Africa and Malta. Participated in the battle at Spartivento. For a short time he was transferred to the anti-raider forces in the Indian Ocean. Then he returned to the Mediterranean Sea.



January 11, 1941 Southampton in convoy ME6. 220 miles east of the Sicilian coast, the convoy was attacked by 12 Ju.87.
Six planes attacked Southampton, getting two hits of 500-kg bombs. "Southampton" was badly damaged, it raged on fires, which immediately got out of control. It was decided to leave the ship and sink it, which was done by the cruiser Orion.

"Newcastle"


At the beginning of the war, he performed assignments in the Atlantic and North Sea. I was looking for German blockade breakers and raiders.

In November 1940 he was transferred to the Mediterranean Sea, took part in the battle at Spartivento.



In December, he operated in the South Atlantic, looking for German blockade-breakers and raiders. In 1942 he conducted convoys in the Indian Ocean.

In June 1942, while in the Mediterranean, he was seriously damaged by a torpedo from a German torpedo boat. After repairs, in 1943, he was transferred to the Indian Ocean, where he operated against Japan until the end of the war.

Sheffield


Probably the most active of the British light cruisers. 12 stars for successful combat operations is an indicator that the cruiser was good and the crew matched her.

Throughout 1939, the cruiser operated in the North Sea and Atlantic, looking for German raiders and transports.

He took part in landing operations in Norway, covered landings and evacuated troops.

He was transferred to the Mediterranean Sea, where he covered the Maltese convoys as part of Compound H. Took part in the battle at Spartivento. He intercepted Vichy convoys, hunted for the "Admiral Hipper", who drove British convoys in the Atlantic.

Participated in the search and battle with the battleship Bismarck. After the battle, while patrolling his sector, the German submarine supply tanker "Fredriche Breme" sank and sank.


Until November 1941, the cruiser operated in the North Atlantic, after which she was assigned to the covering forces for North Atlantic convoys. Until January 1943 he took part in 11 convoys.

Participant in the "New Year's Battle" in the Barents Sea. It was the artillerymen of Sheffidla and Jamaica who sank the destroyer Friedrich Eckholdt and threw the Admiral Hipper on the full program.

In 1943, he was briefly transferred to the Mediterranean, where he covered the landing of American troops in Sicily and in Italy itself.

Then he was again transferred to the North and took part in escorting convoys and the battle at North Cape. Received a salvo from the Scharnhorst that damaged the engines. But in the end, the Scharnhorst was sunk.


Then he performed various tasks off the coast of Norway.

Few ships in the British navy can boast participation in such operations as the cruiser "Sheffield". And escorting 13 convoys is a very significant help.

"Glasgow"


Not as rich in awards as its predecessor, but 4 stars for successful operations is also not bad.

At the beginning of the war, until the end of 1939, he patrolled the North Sea.

In 1940 he took part in the Norwegian operation. He covered the landing of troops, evacuated, took out part of Norway's gold reserves to Great Britain, and evacuated the royal family of Norway.

In 1941 he was transferred to the Mediterranean. He covered British aircraft carriers during the raid on Taranto. On December 3, he received two torpedoes from Italian aircraft and stood up for repairs.

After repairs, he was transferred to the Indian Ocean, where he led convoys and hunted for German raiders. Found "Admiral Scheer" who was pirating but was unable to maintain contact due to lack of fuel.


Was transferred back to the metropolis. Took part in the battle in the Bay of Biscay on December 28, 1943. Two cruisers, "Glasgow" and "Enterprise", clashed in battle with 5 German destroyers and 6 destroyers. As a result, 1 destroyer and 2 destroyers were sunk.

Took part in the landing of allied troops in Normandy. He was damaged in a battle with German coastal batteries, after repairs until the end of the war he operated in the Indian Ocean.

"Birmingham"


He met the beginning of the war in Singapore and until 1940 carried out assignments in the Indian Ocean.

In 1940 he was transferred to participate in the Norwegian operation.

In 1941 he took part in operations in the Mediterranean. He was again transferred to the Indian Ocean, where until mid-1943 he performed various tasks.


On November 27, 1943, the cruiser arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean, and on November 28, off the coast of Cyrenaica, she received a torpedo from the German submarine U-407. As a result of the hit, 29 people died, the cruiser's bow cellars were flooded, the ship got a trim of 8 degrees, and its speed dropped to 20 knots. The renovation continued until April 1944.

In 1944 he took part in operations near Norway, after which he was again transferred to the Indian Ocean, where he met the end of the war.

The active and fruitful service of the Southampton-class cruisers as the workhorses of the British navy shows that in reality they have turned out to be very balanced, strong and tenacious ships. With a very decent potential for further development.

Yes, these cruisers were light only in terms of armament, which did not prevent them from going out on opponents that surpassed them in all respects. The best example of this is the battle in the Bay of Biscay, where against 17 152-mm guns and 22 British cruisers torpedo tubes there were 20 150-mm guns and 24 105-mm guns, plus 64 torpedo tubes from German ships. Yes, destroyers and torpedo boats did not hold the shells of the 152mm British guns, but both sides had a chance.

The huge distances that the ships could cover made it possible to transfer them from one ocean to another in order to complete tasks.

In general, they turned out to be very good cruisers.
Author:
168 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 29 December 2020 05: 53
    -1
    Actually, this is how empires were built. And in empires, cruisers and battleships were built to protect the interests of empires.
    not about Russia at all ... sorry.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 29 December 2020 18: 51
      +4
      Duc Russia is the homeland and England is the womb and the colonies, while the remote buyouts should not be guarded by infantry from the local ones, but robbed by anbegi fleets
      1. unknown
        unknown 30 December 2020 20: 38
        -3
        After the "collapse" of the British Empire, an audit was ordered.
        A serious audit, not for show, but for yourself, to understand what went wrong.
        The findings were overwhelming.
        The British Empire was a completely unprofitable enterprise.
        No wonder, because it was the "right" empire.
        To export something, you need to find it, develop it, build logistics, train local personnel. That is, to invest. In fact, the metropolis invested more in the colonies than it received.
        This, of course, does not negate the fact that individual companies and individuals have been able to enrich themselves.
        But the general situation was sad.
        So, the "collapse" of such an "empire" was a blessing for the "metropolis".
        1. Andrey Kuznetsov_2
          Andrey Kuznetsov_2 3 January 2021 17: 15
          +2
          What nonsense!
          1. unknown
            unknown 5 January 2021 17: 06
            -2
            Your answer is nonsense.
            This information was received by me from the head of the department of foreign history of a specialized historical university.
            A quarter of a century ago.
            In psychology, there is such a concept: rigidity of thinking.
            Regularity is not the ability to comprehend new information and new facts.
            This should not be confused with adherence to principles.
        2. Serg4545
          Serg4545 5 January 2021 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: ignoto
          In fact, the metropolis invested more in the colonies than it received

          Allow me. But Britain at one time owned half of the world.
          According to you, Britain invested in these vast territories more than it received. And she was engaged in this charity for a couple of centuries. But where did they get the funds for this !?
          And than. When Britain lost its colonies, it seems unlikely that the British were living better.
    2. roll
      roll 3 January 2021 12: 45
      -3
      Russia is also an empire, only bad, Asian.
      1. unknown
        unknown 5 January 2021 17: 11
        0
        Russia, like Great Britain, is the "RIGHT" empire.
        The metropolis invests resources in the development of new territories.
        As a result, new territories (colonies) sometimes live better than the metropolis.
        The "WRONG" empire is the USA.
        They have already come to the developed territories.
        They don't need to invest resources.
        The policy of neo-colonialism allows them to use the resources of other countries without their formal capture and annexation.
        1. roll
          roll 11 January 2021 05: 12
          0
          England fared better than the colonies. And RI and Scoop were crooked, but logical empires in their own way, and the stronger the position of such a shit empire in any territory, the worse life is there and the less rights of the local population (they will not go anywhere, they will pull the strap). And the farther to the periphery - the more rights and better life (so as not to leave). It is surprising that you do not understand this.
      2. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 8 January 2021 18: 08
        0
        so that such a clever answer to you so that, in fact, and without offending the moerators, then ... tell me?
        1. roll
          roll 11 January 2021 05: 14
          -1
          Pope, maybe someone will understand your native language ...
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 29 December 2020 06: 21
    0
    Regardless of the "body" of the article itself, there is again a mess with types and classes.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 29 December 2020 07: 00
      +3
      Class - light cruiser ...
      Type - "Southampton" ...
      wink smile hi
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      porridge with types and classes
      1. tasha
        tasha 29 December 2020 07: 13
        +1
        So, "Southamptons" is the first series of "Town" class ships
        hi laughing
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 29 December 2020 08: 15
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Class - light cruiser ...
        Type - "Southampton" ...

        There is no porridge in your comment. ))) hi
      3. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 1 January 2021 19: 16
        0
        In English literature, "class" corresponds to our "type"
    2. Mister X
      Mister X 29 December 2020 09: 12
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Regardless of the "body" of the article itself, there is again a mess with types and classes.

      hi
      You can easily get confused with the types and classes of ships, especially if you search only by name.
      For example, Sheffield.
      3 different ships served in different years:
      Light cruiser Town-class HMS Sheffield (C24)
      Type 42 air defense destroyer HMS Sheffield (D80)
      Frigate type 22 Sheffield (F96)
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 29 December 2020 09: 22
        +5
        Quote: Mister X
        You can easily get confused with the types and classes of ships, especially if you search only by name
        I see no confusion, three ships of different classes.
        1. Mister X
          Mister X 29 December 2020 09: 32
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          I see no confusion

          I put them on the shelves.
          And if you judge only by the name?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 29 December 2020 09: 36
            +3
            At one time, the ships of the same name do not serve, and in a book or article it is not particularly difficult to write the class of the ship in front of the name, and add a project, in especially difficult cases.
            1. Mister X
              Mister X 29 December 2020 09: 42
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              it is not very difficult to write the class of the ship before the name

              Thats exactly what I mean.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              in especially difficult cases.

              For example: the frigate with hull number F96, which received the name Bruiser at first, was renamed Sheffield.
              Here you can't do without a background.
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 29 December 2020 09: 10
    +11
    Our history today is a history of not giving a damn about all these contracts, Washington and London combined, which, however, gave rise to very, very good ships.
    So what was the "disregard for contracts"?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 09: 30
      +6
      Quote: Undecim
      So what was the "disregard for contracts"?

      )))
      Apparently, "Mogami" was meant.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 29 December 2020 10: 03
        +3
        And "Mogami" in what "spit" on the contract?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 10: 27
          +3
          1. It seems like initially did not fit into 10K.
          2. Being a preform for the SRT, it was built with the intention to violate the restrictions on the types of ships.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 11: 19
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            1. It seems like initially did not fit into 10K.

            According to the project - 8500 tons
            In fact, it turned out ok. 11200.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 11: 44
              +3
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              According to the project - 8500 tons

              It is believed that this is either club-handedness / eyewash of designers, or initially a military cunning. Considering the scale is almost 1,5 times - rather the second than the first.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 11: 49
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                It is believed that this is either club-handedness / eyewash of designers, or initially a military cunning.

                8500 is a "declaration", the contractual limits at that time seemed to be "fulfilled".
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 11: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  8500 is a "declaration", the contractual limits at that time seemed to be "fulfilled".

                  Well, 10K is not fulfilled either. And as for the declarations - the agreements provided for the notification of the parties about the introduced tonnage, so this "declaration" is not such an optional figure as it seems.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 00
                    +1
                    That is why I am writing - a declaration.
                    It's still hard to check it: only taking into account my own experience and some extrapolations.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 12: 05
                      +2
                      )))
                      Dock and measure.

                      However, Mogami was adopted by the fleet in the 35th, and at the end of the 34th Japan had already sent all the peace fighters on an erotic journey on foot. So she won't be able to present something seriously.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Dock and measure.


                        From 1st London, if that ... :)
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 12: 16
                        0
                        Yes, that's right. What is it for?
                      3. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 34
                        0
                        It's about "dock and measure" ... :)
          2. unknown
            unknown 30 December 2020 20: 47
            -4
            Clubhand.
            Not without reason, the British called the Japanese school of shipbuilding "dilettan".
            And it couldn’t be otherwise.
            Ancient Japanese history is fake.
            In fact, it all started in the middle of the nineteenth century, after the so-called Crimean War. The Dutch, Americans, French and British began to import representatives of the Polynesian islands to these four southern islands of the Kuril chain.
            And from this that they brought in, and formed the "Japanese people".
            Asian peoples, of course, are distinguished by their ability to "reflected technologies", that is, to steal and copy, but this takes time and a certain level of development.
            1. Sergey M. Karasev
              Sergey M. Karasev 3 January 2021 10: 38
              +3
              Until the middle of the 19th century. Are the Japanese islands uninhabited? belay laughing
              However, you famously began to celebrate the holidays ... fool
              1. unknown
                unknown 5 January 2021 17: 16
                -1
                Why uninhabited?
                The original population of the four southern islands of the Kuril ridge (now the so-called Japanese) are the Ainu. Representatives of the white race. By the way, the Ainu may well initially sound like "Ivans". "Ivan" - still in the criminal hair dryer - "chief", "master".
                By the way, a curious fact that they don't like to advertise: On the territory of modern China, there are no burials of representatives of the yellow race over 150 years old.
        2. unknown
          unknown 30 December 2020 20: 41
          0
          In fact - 9500 tons.
          But, in fact, we had to put on modernization, as a result of which the standard displacement increased to 11200 tons.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 17
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            In fact - 9500 tons.

            In fact -11200 tons.
            The figure on 10.07.1935/XNUMX/XNUMX is the date of acceptance tests.
            9500 tons is the standard displacement for the C-37 project for the summer of 1931.
  • roll
    roll 3 January 2021 12: 47
    +1
    It's a kind of patriotism, just spit on an Englishwoman.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 29 December 2020 09: 28
    +5
    A few quick notes:
    "Southampton" became the first British cruiser, which installed new three-gun turret mounts Mk.XXII

    why then in the picture we see the turret installation of the Mk.XXIII cruiser HMS Belfast (twin HMS Edinburgh had the same)?

    Notable feature all British three-gun turrets including on subsequent models of cruisers, there was a shift of the middle barrel by 76 cm back


    Even considering that the triple Mk I cannon 102 mm (4 inch) BL 4 inch Mk IX, these are not turret mounts, the Mk I turrets of the battleships HMS Nelson and Rodney did not have the middle barrel offset 76 cm back.

    It is logical that the total displacement of the cruisers by the end of the war had increased to 12 - 190 tons. For comparison, the Hawkins-class heavy cruiser had a displacement of 12 tons. Yes, the difference between the old heavy cruiser and the new light cruiser was not very significant, despite all the limitations.

    And traditionally the issue of displacement. I omit the fact that for comparison with "cities" the Author chose pre-contractual HMS Hawkins - Apparently, he corresponds to the thesis. - The only problem is that the value of 12 100 ts is the full displacement from the very beginning of its service. Compare comparable - the displacement of ships for the same period is not less (for example, 1937 and 1945)

    Secondly, the classification of a cruiser into light or heavy was determined not by the displacement, but by the caliber of the main battery guns.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 December 2020 14: 36
      +3
      Quote: Constanty
      Even considering that the triple Mk I cannon 102 mm (4 inch) BL 4 inch Mk IX, these are not turret mounts, the Mk I turrets of the battleships HMS Nelson and Rodney did not have the middle barrel offset 76 cm back.

      Towers "Nelson" and "Rodney" only the offset central trunk was not enough for complete happiness. They could be brought to mind in their usual form only in the second half of the 30s. smile
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 29 December 2020 19: 42
        +1
        In fact, these guns were very unsuccessful, but there was no middle offset. smile
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 December 2020 10: 33
          +3
          Quote: Constanty
          In fact, these guns were very unsuccessful, but there was no middle offset. smile

          Oh yes, on the towers of "Rodney" British designers had fun in full. smile
          Only the absence of a vertical shoulder strap and rollers that prevent the tower from displacing in a horizontal plane when rotating in rough conditions is worth it (the result is increased wear of the road wheels and scuffs along the edge of the lower support ring of the BSh GK shoulder strap). Moreover, the problem was discovered after the construction of the LC.
          Plus - a cloud of mutual closure devices and security interlocks, which regularly buggy and stopped the firing cycle (they wrote that the RIF was the first to face this problem in its dotsushima towers: the low qualification of the l / s forced to put "foolproof" on everything that was possible - only these devices themselves required qualified and regular maintenance and adjustment, without which they worked through the stump-deck).
          In general, the Rodney was able to fire the first 16 full volleys only in 1934. But the number of problems in these tests was so great that most of them could be fixed only by 1939. And not completely.
          And now, having already had the sad experience of designing and fine-tuning the Rodney's three-gun turrets, British designers and the British admirals put on the following LCs fourgun turrets. Which again had to be done from scratch. Ahhh, here we go again © laughing
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 30 December 2020 11: 00
            +2
            With this in mind, using the old 381mm tower from the Fisher White Elephants on the HMS Vanguard is not a bad move - both in terms of tower availability and operational reliability.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 11: 08
              0
              They didn't intermeddle. Plus I wanted to take everything from life, in the sense of 16 "
          2. roll
            roll 3 January 2021 12: 50
            0
            The four-gun Kings towers gave so many passes that they did not differ from the two-gun ones in terms of fire performance ...
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 29 December 2020 09: 35
    +8
    Actually, it was a dozen "town" that became the pinnacle of the development of the classic English light cruiser of the 30-40s of the XX century in the contractual displacement. Decent defense, decent weaponry, decent "standard" speed of 32 knots. And while not forced, but working. The lightweight hulls "Mogami" were hardly capable of holding their declared 35 knots on a decent wave, which later proved to be true and had to be driven back to the shipyard to strengthen the hulls. And the British could ... The next type of "colonies" were already cheaper, lighter ships.
    Here are the five “Southamptons” and the next trinity of almost identical “Manchesters” are my favorites. Balanced and graceful handsome men.
    By article. Written easily, in the author's style. Despite the fact that the author managed not to mess too much.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 29 December 2020 10: 53
      +5
      The most powerful British light cruiser, but absolutely not outstanding against the background of rivals
      Mogami looks stronger even without rearmament.
      Brooklyn too.
      The real rate of fire is faded against the background of amers. And only slightly higher than that of the Japanese, but the Mogami's shell is much heavier
      Although, we must pay tribute, two air torpedoes did not become the death of Glasgow. For a Briton, it's so gorgeous.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 11: 49
        +4
        Quote: Engineer
        The most powerful British light cruiser, but absolutely not outstanding against the background of rivals
        Mogami looks stronger even without rearmament.

        )))
        Do you like to scold the British.

        In fact, a relatively adequate ship, removing the extra tower is generally the norm. Just five-turret KRL is not a reasonable decision.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 29 December 2020 12: 04
          +1
          Do you like to scold the British.

          Mostly on the case, it seems to me.

          Of the really powerful ones, they only have Tribal and partly Jervis.

          When the undersized Wasp in terms of aircraft basing capabilities is much superior to Viktories, you will inevitably wonder what is in the heads of the Dolbychan.

          In fact, a relatively adequate ship, removing the extra tower is generally the norm.


          In fact, the ship as a whole is quite adequate. In the sense that the British managed not to spoil anything.
          But his counterpart is even more adequate.
          Mogami is generally very cool, including in terms of survivability.

          Making the ultimate ship and then removing the extra tower is somehow not very good. And if you still remove the tower, then the five-tower becomes a very attractive solution.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 12: 15
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            When the undersized Wasp in terms of aircraft basing capabilities is much superior to Viktories, you will inevitably wonder what is in the heads of the Dolbychan.

            We have already been at this place. It is incorrect to compare English and American ABs directly. Because a) the Americans have different standards for deck-based aircraft b) you include half-disassembled aircraft tied to the ceiling in the American air wing, c) yes, the British AB are balanced differently.
            Quote: Engineer
            And if you still remove the tower, then the five-tower becomes a very attractive solution.

            Yeah. I was also eager to convert Brooklyn to Cleveland without building new ships. wassat True, given the fact that Helena was adopted by the fleet in September 39th, a small question arises: who is it to the fig that built it like that?
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 29 December 2020 12: 38
              0
              We have already been at this place.

              Wasp and Vic did not seem to be compared. In any case, aircraft carriers, along with battleships, represent Inselaffen's greatest WWII failure. Another spanking won't hurt

              a) the Americans have other standards for deck-based aircraft

              What year? Since 42, regulations have moved towards unification - see USS Robin
              You include semi-disassembled planes tied to the ceiling in the American air wing

              This is where I had this? Are you confusing something
              And even without them, the air wing is inflamed more.
              And he has 3 elevators against two and two more catapults in the hangar. An open hangar in which you can warm up aircraft engines before lifting, in a closed British hangar this cannot be done
              Victories cannot carry the Dontless weapon of victory in 1942. Zero, by the way, can't either. The elevators are small.
              Avengers are placed on his elevators very tightly - the rise is slow and will still lose them as it did in the Pacific
              Vic has less jet fuel than the Independences.

              Britons, in principle, cannot duel with a strong opponent.

              c) yes, English ABs are balanced differently.


              It's about the concept. He turned out to be vicious among the British. There were so many bells and whistles that it was almost impossible to fix it. And in Korea, ersatz colossus puffed
              At the end of the war, the British recognized the superiority of the American concept and began to move in the same direction, but it was too late.

              г
              I was also eager to convert Brooklyn to Cleveland without building new ships.

              I am not eager to redo. But Brooklyn is clearly better than the town.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 16: 49
                +1
                Quote: Engineer
                Brooklyn is clearly better than the town.

                ))
                Quote: Engineer
                aircraft carriers along with battleships are Inselaffen's greatest WWII failure

                This is Sodaki and Cleaves - WWII's greatest failure. But the Essexes are in the same stove, between us.
                Quote: Engineer
                What year?

                What year did you take?
                Quote: Engineer
                This is where I had this? Are you confusing something

                Well, let’s give the details, you don’t give the numbers.
                Quote: Engineer
                Britons, in principle, cannot duel with a strong opponent.

                And in figs they have to duel with a strong opponent? Who is their enemy? Why did the British AB still remember, or no longer?
                1. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 20: 28
                  0
                  This is Sodaki and Cleaves - WWII's greatest failure. But the Essexes are in the same stove, between us.

                  As usual, there will be no facts. Essex especially
                  What year did you take?

                  42-43 year
                  I wrote
                  see USS Robin


                  Well, let’s give the details, you don’t give the numbers.

                  I was waiting for a miracle and thought that I would see at least a little of them from my opponent))

                  January 1943. Vick on continuing education in the USA
                  I emphasize that they straightened his extremities and established the basing of some of the aircraft on the deck
                  The number and types of aircraft to be carried was also discussed and the complement it was decided at finally was 36 Martlet (F4F4) and 18 TBF's.

                  Total 54

                  Wasp's last exit 1942
                  Her total aircraft group was 26 Grumman F4F Wildcats, 25 Douglas SBD Dauntlesses, and 11 Grumman TBF Avengers.

                  Total 62. At the same time, the Dontlesss have non-folding wings, that is, 25 such aircraft are equivalent to at least 36 Marchlets.



                  And in figs they have to duel with a strong opponent? Who is their enemy? Why did the British AB still remember, or no longer?

                  Again 25.
                  What's the difference why they did it? The main thing is what actually happened.
                  And in fact, the Yapi are opponents.
                  According to plans, Vasily was going to a sauna with the girls on Friday evening. In fact, after the call from his wife, he took the child from kindergarten and bought a present for his mother-in-law at the DR. Vasily is a womanizer and hedonist or is henpecked, in fact?
                  Are you betting that Wasp is better protected from air attacks anywhere, even in the Mediterranean, thanks to its larger avigroup (always one more squadron) and better basing capabilities?
            2. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 53
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              True, given the fact that Helena was adopted by the fleet in September 39th, a small question arises: who is it to the fig that built it like that?

              What confuses you about it?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 16: 45
                +1
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                What confuses you about it?

                It is embarrassing that the ship of the 39th year has air defense on machine guns and 4 turrets 5/38 (and adopted a year earlier by Honolulu in general pin 5/25), but 5 turrets of the main battery. That is, a new, in fact, ship needs to be sharply sawed.

                This brings to mind the famous American air defense, yes.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 17: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  That is, a new, in fact, ship needs to be sharply sawed.

                  I didn't understand the logic ...

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  This brings to mind the famous American air defense, yes.

                  And what about this?
                  The famous air defense appeared only when the Americans, through the British, took over the Bofors and Erlikons.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 19: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                    I didn't understand the logic ...

                    See the development of the 3 sub-series of towns. Do you see this kind of development in Brooklyn? The last Brooklyn was founded in December 36, like Edinburgh and Belfast, which of them is more adequate for the 40s?
                    1. Macsen_wledig
                      Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 19: 29
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      See the development of the 3 sub-series of towns.

                      The first and second series have minimal differences.
                      The third series is about how the British built "Brooklyn", nothing more.

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Do you see this kind of development in Brooklyn?

                      And what to develop there?
                      What the Americans wanted (changed the universal caliber and re-assembled the MKU), they did.

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      The last Brooklyn was founded in December 36, like Edinburgh and Belfast, which of them is more adequate for the 40s?

                      And what is the "inadequacy" of the last "Brooklyn"?
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 23: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        And what is the "inadequacy" of the last "Brooklyn"?

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        It is embarrassing that the ship of the 39th year has air defense on machine guns and 4 turrets 5/38 (and adopted a year earlier by Honolulu in general pin 5/25), but 5 turrets of the main battery.
                      2. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 10: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Confused then

                        So what?
                        Sometimes it seems to me that you have come up with some ideal project for a "spherical cruiser in a vacuum" and compare it with real projects.
                        If something suits you, then the project is bad, and the designers are suckers ...

                        As for the Brooks ...
                        Why are the four Brooklyn towers worse than the British 6x2-4 "and their very strange feed design, and you probably don't know that the British in the 44th" twisted the "aft pair 4" without losing the effectiveness of the far zone air defense?

                        Regarding the "machine guns" ... You, probably, are not aware again that the installation of four "Chicago pianos" was laid in the "Brooklyn" project (displacement reserve, organization of positions). One problem is that their development and production lagged behind the construction of ships.
                        Further, it will be news for you again that in the project of the third series of "towns" the "machine-gun" MZA was represented by a pair of four-barreled "Vickers".
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 10: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        You have come up with some ideal project for a "spherical cruiser in a vacuum" and compare it with real projects.
                        If something suits you, then the project is bad, and the designers are suckers ...

                        Partly yes. I partly have a personal dislike for five-turret cruisers, I don’t know if they bit me in my childhood or what. Well, and for the Americans somehow I worry much more than for the rest, what a Count Tolstoy-American.
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        You probably don't know again,

                        That is, from my position of "Americans are pests" we are shifting to "in principle, norms, but the Americans could not."

                        Okay, then you need to go into the rivets in the style of multi-part articles AizCh. Let us stop at this point for now.
                      4. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 10: 58
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        That is, from my position of "Americans are pests" we are shifting to "in principle, norms, but the Americans could not."

                        Well ... Where you are moving there are your difficulties. ;)

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Okay, then you need to go into the rivets in the style of multi-part articles AizCh. Let us stop at this point for now.

                        As you wish.:)
          2. roll
            roll 3 January 2021 13: 04
            0
            4 * 2 * 127/38 This is a first-class long-range air defense system, practically guaranteeing 60-75 25 kg shots per side 1500-1750 kg. Who's better? The Yaps have 50% of such a volley, the Britons have about that, the USSR has 35%, the Germans have 70-80%.

            Short-range air defense of less than 40 mm caliber is ineffective, only with central aiming. So no one had it. It is useless to shoot at dive bombers without central aiming, at torpedo bombers - almost ...
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 52
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      When the undersized Wasp in terms of aircraft basing capabilities is much superior to Viktories, you will inevitably wonder what is in the heads of the Dolbychan.

      And what, "Wasp" was supposed to operate in the inland seas in the same ranks with battleships? :)
      Based on this, they designed the "illastries" ...
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 29 December 2020 13: 05
        0
        From what Mr. Henderson designed these boxes, I know.
        But in practice it turned out that Wasp can also operate in the inland seas.
        And British aircraft carriers against the Germans looked very unconvincing in these very inland seas.
        Wasp can do almost anything more efficiently. A clear advantage of its concept.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 13: 32
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          But in practice it turned out that Wasp can also operate in the inland seas.

          I don’t remember that "Wasp" operated in Mediterranean within the range of German aviation and was subjected to its attacks ...
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 29 December 2020 13: 35
            0
            He acted in the Mediterranean.
            And he is much better prepared for air attacks than Illastries. Fighters >> Anti-aircraft guns and deck armor
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 14: 07
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              He acted in the Mediterranean.

              Thanks, Cap... ;)

              Quote: Engineer
              And he is much better prepared for air attacks than Illastries. Fighters >> Anti-aircraft guns and deck armor

              Armor? Are you talking about the 31mm lower deck?
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 29 December 2020 14: 20
                0
                Thanks, Cap... ;)

                Yes to health.
                Fighters (Waspa) >> anti-aircraft guns and armor (Illastries)

                So the rules?

                Wasp would kill the British box in a duel even if he was given American planes and given them a deck base. Against the Japanese, the Brit is worse than Wasp. Better against the shore of Wasp. For securing an air defense umbrella, Wosp is better.
                Nothing will prevent Wasp from operating in the Mediterranean with a British squadron or any other squadron.
                As a wartime aircraft carrier, Wasp is again better - simpler EH and no scarce armor.
                For the delivery of fighters to Malta again only Wosp.

                The overwhelming superiority of the American aircraft carrier concept is the aircraft infrastructure above all.

                Henderson was very wrong. It was necessary to develop Arc-Royal.
                1. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 14: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: Engineer
                  So the rules?

                  Yes, that's better ...

                  Quote: Engineer
                  Nothing will prevent Wasp from operating in the Mediterranean with a British squadron or any other squadron.

                  The question is very rhetorical ...
                2. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 14: 26
                  0
                  And what is stopping him?
                  A couple of knots less speed, which is still much higher than the squadron speed? Or the absence of an armored box hangar, which in fact did not protect from the Germans at all?
                3. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 14: 43
                  +2
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Or the absence of an armored box hangar, which in fact did not protect from the Germans at all?

                  Even this ...
                  It seems to me that he would not have endured the fact that he had removed the Illastries on January 10, 41st ...
                4. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 14: 58
                  -1
                  Heh.
                  Then you are here.
                  https://topwar.ru/172945-britanskie-avianoscy-pod-bombami-ljuftvaffe.html

                  Wosp wouldn't have gotten that much. The Germans attacked without fighter cover. 26 wasp slayers would have set up a slaughterhouse there. The Germans could count on 1-2 hits
                5. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 15: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Wasp just wouldn't get that much

                  Who knows...

                  Quote: Engineer
                  The Germans attacked without fighter cover.

                  Why do you think that the Germans, knowing that, say, a "normal aircraft carrier" "plays" against them, would not think about this problem?
                6. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 15: 09
                  0
                  The Germans could not know the exact composition of Illastries' air group. And that there is only one squadron of fighters. And most likely they did not know about the armored deck either. The Admiralty kept this a closely guarded secret.
                  In any case, a fighter is better than armor, again. Therefore Wasp is better protected
                7. Macsen_wledig
                  Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 15: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  In any case, a fighter is better than armor, again. Therefore Wasp is better protected

                  Then how do you explain the appearance of "Midway"? :)
                8. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 15: 44
                  +2
                  In a huge displacement, it became possible to fit the armor of the flight deck without losing the air group. Nishtyachok, said the striped ones. At the same time, of course, the British problem with a one-piece armored sealed hangar was not repeated. Only the deck itself. Hangar open
                  In fact, there were losses in the number of the air group, but the estimates of the Americans showed that it was not necessary to pack significantly more than 100 aircraft. Further, losses are already growing for the lifting of the entire air group into the air and its collection.

                  Shl. The armor did not protect Illastries at all.
                  Illastries' experience simply showed the Americans that the danger of bombs must be taken into account - strengthened the arguments of the supporters of the top booking, which had been talked about since 31 years.

                  By the way, the British also abandoned the closed hangar on the latest wartime aircraft carrier projects. And even from the booking, the latter must be checked separately. I can confuse
                9. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 17: 12
                  -1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  it is not necessary to pack significantly more than 100 aircraft. Further, losses are already growing for the lifting of the entire air group into the air and its collection.

                  Generally, the "estimates" showed that 20-30 aircraft should be produced in one wave. Maximum 2 waves. The rest is air defense fighters AUS. The rest is a warehouse.

                  That's why I write that the Essexes are a floating aircraft depot.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  The poor quality of aviation was superimposed on the crooked concept. As a result, they had to rely on armor and anti-aircraft guns.

                  That is, the claims to the ships smoothly spilled over to the absence of naval aviation and the traditional for all landowners disregard of the KVVS to the problems of the fleet.
                10. Engineer
                  Engineer 29 December 2020 19: 36
                  0
                  Actually, the "estimates" showed

                  There were many estimates both before the war and during

                  2 waves maximum

                  This is your opinion. In fact, there were three and four waves. Ozawa won't let you lie

                  That's why I write that the Essexes are a floating warehouse of planes
                  .

                  New entity in dispute?
                  Is Victories not disputed anymore? Like Wasp's superiority?
                  I need to whip the "best-best-aircraft carrier-WWII" according to your concept separately?

                  That is, the claims to the ships smoothly spilled over to the absence of naval aviation and the traditional for all landowners disregard of the KVVS to the problems of the fleet.

                  Eeeee noooo, did not flow. )))
                  User Rurikovich remembered the quality of British cars. Neighing together.
                  The quality of the ships, I separately neighing above. Someone left without comment. ))
                  Suddenly I remember the breakthrough of the samurai to York one and a half years later.

                  Two squadrons of fighters are always better than one. And the armored deck did not save from the Germans at all. Let's not forget. Wasp is better protected from aircraft than Victories, no matter how you cast a shadow over the fence.
                11. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 00: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  There were many estimates both before the war and during

                  Yeah. During the war, even this did not work, 30 cars is just a dream.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  In fact, there were three and four waves. Ozawa won't let you lie

                  Are you talking about Mariana? This is when Okizawa with 9AV instead of 180-270 planes lifted from 47 to 107 to alpha-strike? This is on the strength of 2 waves, but the Japanese in 44 have already forgotten how to do al-fast rides. They fought like Americans on the 42nd, practically. Only without direct divine intervention, the whole fortune in December 41 was spent.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Is Victories not disputed anymore? Like Wasp's superiority?

                  What does "not disputed" mean? It has already been written to you and me and not by me that these 2 ABs were created under different TK. More precisely, the Englishman was created under the TK, and the Americans had to build a spit that. The budget will not master itself. You will also say that the Americans in '35 were serious about aircraft carriers.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Two squadrons of fighters are always better than one.

                  American Navy fighters of 41 against backlash in 41? It doesn't matter at all, seriously.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  USS Robin

                  The carrier deployed with 52 aircraft aboard: It had been intended for Victorious to carry 42 Martlets, but only 47 were available on the US West Coast. Victorious deployed with 36 to reduce overcrowding and provide a small stock of aircraft at Pearl for training.

                  882 Squadron with 12 Martlet IV (all F4F-4B standard)

                  896 Squadron, 12 Martlet IV

                  898 Squadron, 12 Martlet IV

                  832 Squadron, 16 Avengers

                  At the time, the much larger USS Saratoga was operating:

                  VF-5 with 34 F4F4

                  VB-3 with 19 SBD-3

                  VS-3 with 18 SBD-3

                  VT-8 with 16 TBF-1


                  52 planes by 87. And what's the mess? Little of,
                  As a result, the US Task Force commanding officers agreed that it would be viable to employ “USS Robin” as a dedicated fighter carrier, with an additional 24 Wildcats of VF-3 aboard and her own Avengers 're-based' temporarily aboard USS Saratoga.
                  ...
                  In her role as CAP and fighter carrier, HMS Victorious was operating 60 Martlets and Wildcats.


                  And?

                  After fueling on 24 August Wasp hurried to the battle zone. Her total aircraft group was 26 Grumman F4F Wildcats, 25 Douglas SBD Dauntlesses, and 11 Grumman TBF Avengers. (One SBD Dauntless was earlier lost on 24 August by ditching in the sea because of engine trouble)

                  You make me nervous for how many planes? For 2? For 10?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  As usual, there will be no facts. Essex especially

                  English pre-war AB special bookmarks
                  Ark Royal, Illustrious (4 pieces), Implacable, (1 piece + one more in fall 39), Unicorn. I don't count Hermes.
                  American pre-war AB special bookmarks:
                  Ranger, 3 York (Hornet autumn 39th), Wasp. 5 versus 8. Will you insist that Hornet is stronger than Implacable or what?

                  Or the arguments "Americans are stronger than British" if the planes are thrown away will be reduced to "lexes are better than courageous"? Then everything is correct.

                  As for Essex, the facts are as follows.
                  Ordered: 3 July 1940
                  Cost: 78 million USD
                  Laid down: 28 April 1941

                  I personally don't like all three numbers, no?

                  Quote: Engineer
                  The main thing is what actually happened.

                  In fact, this is
                  HMS Implacable arrived in the Pacific in mid-1945 with 81 aircraft: 48 Seafire IIIs, 12 Fireflies and 21 Avengers.

                  In comparison, the Lexington class could carry about 78 operational aircraft. This could be boosted by up to 30 "spares" being suspended from the hangar ceiling in varying states of assembly.


                  You are correct in that the concept of a floating depot of aircraft and fuel matched perfectly with the tactics that Nimitz eventually developed. But this is pure coincidence, in the 41st Americans never dreamed of such a thing in terrible (or hot) dreams.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Are you betting that Wasp is better protected from air attacks anywhere, even in the Mediterranean, thanks to its larger avigroup (always one more squadron) and better basing capabilities?

                  What I mean is that it wasn't Wasp — it didn't help Wasp — but the Enterprise was better defended against air attacks in 2/2 44, when the Americans learned how to air defenses. And not at all in his 34th
                12. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 01: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  when Okizawa

                  (((
                  Jisaburo Ozawa
                13. Engineer
                  Engineer 30 December 2020 09: 47
                  +1
                  The heat has gone)))

                  What does "not disputed" mean? It has already been written to you and me and not by me that these 2 ABs were created under different technical specifications. More precisely, the Englishman was created under the TK, and the Americans had to build a spit that.


                  From the fact that the British were created under a clear (in practice not feasible) TK, he already automatically surpassed his counterpart?

                  Do you well understand that you are citing as a positive example ships that have completely failed in the role planned for them in the TK? The armored boxes were NOT able to operate in conditions of superiority of the Germans in the air. Read how many days the same Formidebl spent at sea during the Cretan operation. How long did Illastries sail when the 10th Air Corps arrived in Mediterranean?
                  Do you understand that the main work of the Britons happened within the framework of the American concept? On the Pacific Ocean and against Tirpitz.

                  You will also say that the Americans in '35 were serious about aircraft carriers.

                  Of course. Therefore, ships were built with normal and side (including) elevators. LARGE elevators. And open hangars. HIGH Hangars. Aircraft carrier. Not aircraft for an aircraft carrier.

                  Two squadrons of fighters are always better than one.


                  American Navy fighters of 41 against backlash of 41?


                  Well, if you read the circumstances of the damage to all Britons in the Mediterranean, you can see that in all cases the Germans were without fighter cover. And in the case of Indomitable there were already 7 Germans.

                  I am assured that 2-3 squadrons of unfortunate Buffalo (41 years old) change nothing. Of course of course

                  882 Squadron with 12 Martlet IV (all F4F-4B standard)

                  896 Squadron, 12 Martlet IV

                  898 Squadron, 12 Martlet IV

                  832 Squadron, 16 Avengers

                  At the time, the much larger USS Saratoga was operating:

                  VF-5 with 34 F4F4

                  VB-3 with 19 SBD-3

                  VS-3 with 18 SBD-3

                  VT-8 with 16 TBF-1



                  52 planes by 87. And what's the mess? Little of,


                  The zashkvar is that you either did not figure it out at all, or the most rabid cheating went on.
                  You are comparing an aircraft carrier with donless and an aircraft carrier without them. That is, a full-fledged drummer with crap. Again. The Dontless did not have folding wings. Instead of 2 dontlesss, you can take three Avengers. Compare the silhouettes.
                  Sarah carries almost 40 downless it is served as "well look, not so much and more" Amazing. These dauntless dragged in 1942, and if necessary, Lady Sarah will take almost 60 aircraft with folding wings instead.
                  Victories cannot take dontlessy, it strenuously avoids

                  operating 60 Martlets and Wildcats


                  And if you take only fighters, then the Englishman seems almost like a normal avik.
                  And in parrots I am much longer. (c)

                  You make me nervous for how many planes? For 2? For 10?


                  Don't be nervous. We must begin to understand one of the key topics of WWII
                  Specifically, Wasp 62 with dontless against 54 Vic. Without dontless, it will be about 70 to 54
                  With much better base conditions at Waspe.

                  English pre-war AB special bookmarks
                  Ark Royal, Illustrious (4 pieces), Implacable, (1 piece + one more in fall 39), Unicorn. I don't count Hermes.
                  American pre-war AB special bookmarks:
                  Ranger, 3 York (Hornet autumn 39th), Wasp. 5 versus 8. Will you insist that Hornet is stronger than Implacable or what?


                  Stop-stop, we have already moved from comparing specific aircraft carriers to comparing the state of aircraft carrier forces on the eve of the war.?
                  And initially crookedly delivered to prove the inferiority of amers.
                  Let's take only the aviki of the special construction and leave behind two beautiful American ladies. We will only look at the bookmark, because this is the only way Britons look decent.

                  4 Illastries, apart from partly Indomitable, are crippled by birth. They can't be drummers - elevators are too small. There is no implacable and will not be until the age of 44. It's only good for bookmark dates.

                  Unicorn, by the way, is an aircraft carrier that the British tricked into bypassing agreements like a depot ship. Brown has it. Envy, yapi.

                  Do you understand that this whole British zoo, listed above, even with the American air group and American pilots, will be carried out by the Yapas once or twice?
                  When will you finally start paying attention to things like the benefits of an open hangar, large elevators, tall hangars? This is what the oldies Glories and Furies had (except for the open hangar) but did not have the newest and conceptually best Britons according to your version since Vic.

                  The strength of an aircraft carrier is determined by the capabilities provided to the air group.

                  In fact, the British have one good avik-Arc-Royal, and that one is spoiled. The implacable is not bad, just not bad. The rest is degenerative rubbish.

                  Ordered: 3 July 1940
                  Cost: 78 million USD
                  Laid down: 28 April 1941


                  American ships are overpriced. Everyone agrees here. Only the Implacable with its armor and sealed hangar will most likely cost more in American realities.

                  You are correct in that the concept of a floating depot of aircraft and fuel matched perfectly with the tactics that eventually developed with Nimitz.


                  This was not just combined with Nimitz's views (and it was not Nimitz who was responsible for tactics, not his level)
                  This is what the Angles eventually came to.
                  Familiar picture ??

                  English Essex on steroids. The hangar is open from the sides, 4 lifts, of which 2 are side, there is NO armored flight deck. 60 thousand tons of happiness American-style British bottling.

                  Are you talking about Mariana? This is when Okizawa with 9AV instead of 180-270 planes lifted from 47 to 107 to alpha-strike? This is on the strength of 2 waves, but the Japanese in 44 have already forgotten how to do al-fast rides. They fought like Americans on the 42nd, practically. Only without direct divine intervention, the whole fortune in December 41 was spent.

                  I didn't make a selection about waves. Just lazy. Of course, everything was not so, or rather Ozawa was not limited to ..
                14. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 10: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  TK has he already automatically surpassed his counterpart?

                  Ага.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  How long did Illastries sail when the 10th Air Corps arrived in Mediterranean?

                  In the sense of the Germans corpses showered (with)?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Do you understand that the main work of the Britons happened within the framework of the American concept? On the Pacific Ocean and against Tirpitz.

                  Nope. I'll tell you more, a) "work within the framework of the amerskoy concept" was purely episodic, and b) no "amerskoy concept" of the year existed among the Americans themselves until the 44th.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Therefore, ships were built with normal and side (including) elevators. LARGE elevators.

                  As far as I remember, the side elevator on the same Essex appeared due to an oversight.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Aircraft carrier.

                  An open hangar certainly has its advantages.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  And in the case of Indomitable there were already 7 Germans.

                  How about Yorktown?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I am assured that 2-3 squadrons of unfortunate Buffalo (41 years old) change nothing. Of course of course

                  Yeah. Are you really going to fight with the Messers on Buffalo? I thought you just don’t like the English.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  The zashkvar is that you either did not figure it out at all, or the most rabid cheating went on.

                  )))
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Victories cannot take dontlessy, it strenuously avoids

                  That is, we suddenly came to the situation that the British do not have an AB for an American dive bomber and no dive bomber for their AB. It's a shame, of course.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  And if you take only fighters, then the Englishman seems almost like a normal avik.

                  Different mothers are needed, all kinds of mothers are important.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Do you understand that this whole British zoo, listed above, even with the American air group and American pilots, will be carried out by the Yapas once or twice?

                  You still insist that British aircraft carriers are not made for the Pacific War. Yes, not created. Yes, in the Pacific War, the Americans and only the Americans were able to. Only later the Americans.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  We will only look at the bookmark, because this is the only way Britons look decent.

                  There in Britain in 39, some problems began.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Let's take only the special construction aviki and leave behind two beautiful American ladies.

                  wassat
                  And then. Lex and Sarah were extremely successful ships. From the 41st year to finish properly, it would be generally fine.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  American ships are overpriced.

                  Overpricing in overtime.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  This is what the Angles eventually came to.

                  They came to the Igloo. By the way, in October 42nd.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Just lazy. Of course, everything was not so, or rather, Ozawa was not limited to ..

                  Laziness is a strong feeling, I agree. But, perhaps, it will be possible to remember when the PX record (6AB, 183 cars in the first wave) was exceeded.
                15. Engineer
                  Engineer 30 December 2020 11: 06
                  +1
                  In the sense of the Germans showered with corpses (s)?

                  Hell yeah, British

                  Nope. I'll tell you more, a) "work within the framework of the amerskoy concept" was purely episodic, and b) no "amerskoy concept" of the year existed among the Americans themselves until the 44th.


                  Is the search and strike work in the Atlantic purely episodic? Or not American way?
                  It was their appearance in the Mediterranean that was episodic. From the first coming of the Germans and somewhere to Sicily. The Germans swept them out with a filthy broom.

                  b) no "amerskoy concept" of the year did not exist among the Americans themselves until the 44th.


                  Four massacres of the amers in 1942. Brittam before the moon. At least sprinkle them with American planes.
                  The concept of a duel is, the concept of hit and run is. The concept of a common air wing service on Avik, which the Britons later switched to, is also there.

                  That is, we suddenly came to the situation that the British do not have an AB for an American dive bomber and no dive bomber for their AB. It's a shame, of course.


                  Don't juggle. Suddenly it turned out that nothing normal fits into British elevators. Nothing at all. And the abnormal also often does not interfere.

                  How about Yorktown?

                  Will you continue to devalue the presence of fighters?

                  Yeah. Are you really going to fight with the Messers on Buffalo? I thought you just don’t like the English.


                  What are the messengers in the 10th Air Corps? What messengers accompanied things during the Battle of Crete? They didn't interact, read anything other than midnake.

                  As far as I remember, the side elevator on the same Essex appeared due to an oversight.

                  It appeared primarily because it had already been tested on Waspe.

                  You still insist that British aircraft carriers are not made for the Pacific War. Yes, not created. Yes, in the Pacific War, the Americans and only the Americans were able to. Late Americans only.


                  Our song is good, start over. 42nd year was dragged by the late Americans, yeah.

                  They came to the Igloo. By the way, in October 42nd.

                  I wash my hands. It's useless.
                16. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 31 December 2020 00: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I wash my hands.

                  It's a good thing, hygiene to the masses.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  42nd year was dragged by the late Americans, yeah.

                  In 42, the Americans dragged in so that they had to ask the British for a loan, all of a sudden.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Or not American way?

                  Not American.

                  This is your problem. Your vision for AB is built around the idea of ​​ADS. The working idea justified itself, but only in the mid-40s and only among the Americans with their resources for the second set of aviation (the Japanese have questionable success, although there were powerful moments). While in the 30s, both the Americans and the British were building squadron aircraft carriers at the LK, reconnaissance - corral - finishing. Naturally, as the British squadron carriers are made much smarter than the Yorktowns.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Four massacres of the amers in 1942.

                  Do you know that the 42nd year for the Americans went slightly off plan? That there was no question of any leading role of aircraft carriers in any operations in the 30s, with the exception of enthusiasts like Yarnell?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Suddenly it turned out that nothing normal fits into British elevators. Nothing at all. And the abnormal also often does not interfere.

                  Yes, the British did not guess here. Everything, just this claim?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Will you continue to devalue the presence of fighters?

                  They wrote to you that 60 fighters climbed. You will decide, please. Just like AB Air Defense on the Gibraltar-Malta line, the Englishman is ideal. Dive bombers are there unnecessarily, you just need to provide air defense.

                  You wrote on the case that the British AV were not shock by the standards of the 40s (although it was they who carried out the first successful coastal attack) and had insufficient autonomy by the standards of TO. However, no, you cannot stop there.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  What messengers accompanied things during the Battle of Crete? They didn't interact, read anything other than midnake.

                  And against whom should they interact? The ban on the interaction of fighters and dive bombers in Mine Camph is spelled out or what?

                  Are you seriously drowning for the construction of AB strictly on the basis that the Germans will play along? Send unaccompanied drummers?
                  Quote: Engineer
                  He appeared primarily because

                  And during the epic with the design of the Essex they did not try to remove it, by any chance? Note, this is not to say that he is bad, but to the fact that Americans even 40 badly understand about AB.

                  ps
                  Quote: Engineer
                  The Germans swept them out with a filthy broom.

                  LOL what? Are we already discussing an alternative? It is necessary to warn, actually.
                17. Engineer
                  Engineer 31 December 2020 10: 58
                  0
                  This is your problem. Your vision for AB is built around the idea of ​​ADS. The working idea justified itself, but only in the mid-40s and only among the Americans with their resources for the second set of aviation (the Japanese have questionable success, although there were powerful moments). While in the 30s, both the Americans and the British were building squadron aircraft carriers at the LK, reconnaissance - corral - finishing. Naturally, as the British squadron carriers are made much smarter than the Yorktowns.

                  All this particular picket fence masks the main thing. The Americans made the ships to grow. And we won. Their concept - everything for the aircraft - has proven itself perfectly. It scales well and is extremely flexible. The British one turned out to be a fail. The war is an ultimatum test, and its British aircraft carriers have generally failed.

                  Do you know that the 42nd year for the Americans went slightly off plan?

                  What is this for? That the war will put everything in its place? Are we in general specifically about aircraft carriers or about the strategic plans of the fleets in general?

                  Just like AB air defense on the Gibraltar-Malta line, the Englishman is ideal.

                  For the tenth time
                  I argued that even Wasp is better. Including air defense. There are more planes, the basing conditions are better, the open air defense hangar decides - the warming up of the aircraft engines even before the flight. And two hangar catapults allow you to quickly strengthen the BVP on alarm. Total superiority of the concept.

                  I already painted about the armor a long time ago


                  In 42, the Americans dragged in so that they had to ask the British for a loan, all of a sudden.

                  And a lot of borrowed war fought? The clowns had to arrange advanced training. That is, in fact, the Britons needed it more.
                  And yes, we won. A stronger opponent at that time.

                  Yes, the British did not guess here. Everything, just this claim?

                  Fire, the boxer has pillows instead of fists. Only this claim ??)) Is this missing ??
                  Not only.
                  A closed hangar, a small supply of aviation fuel and ammunition (except for the last pair), two elevators instead of three, low hangars on the later pair (the best avik, they said) - the supermegauber Corsair does not fit, alas
                  To upgrade the ship, you need to completely cut off the hangar armored box along the perimeter along and insert intermediate sheets there. ... The British did this once on Vick and waved their hand.
                  In Korea, colossus are puffed out, while Implacable and company have paws. Gorgeous.

                  They wrote to you that 60 fighters climbed. You will decide, please. Just like AB Air Defense on the Gibraltar-Malta line, the Englishman is ideal. Dive bombers are there unnecessarily, you just need to provide air defense.

                  But the British did not use their aircraft carriers as air defense ships somewhere up to Operation Pedestal. In 1941, the regular air group was 1 squadron of fighters and 2 torpedo bombers.
                  The British never hammered their aviks with fighters in real operations. ... Please don't pedal this heresy. Even during the landing in Sicily, they carried 12-15 Albacores.
                  Dive bombers there unnecessarily

                  The British themselves thought otherwise. As soon as Firefly appeared, they immediately began to use it in this capacity.

                  Are you seriously drowning for the construction of AB strictly on the basis that the Germans will play along? Send unaccompanied drummers?


                  You should have opened the sources long ago and figured out, finally

                  10 aviakopus on the Mediterranean did not have a single 109th. It is a fact
                  Nobody covered Hozzel
                  JG 77 acted against Crete, but British reports were silent about the fighter cover of German strikers at sea.
                  The British Fulmars in one squadron somehow acted against the Germans for the entire 41st year.
                  I'm being told about the absurdity of 2 Buffalo Squadrons, which are better.

                  Operation Pedestal. Mid 1942 The British are stuffed with fighters. Bad, mostly. Widecat is the best of them all, heh

                  A flight of three or six torpedo-armed He111s made their attack run first, unseen by the high fighters as they skimmed the darkening wave tops.

                  Some 27 Ju88 low-angle dive bombers converged on the convoy from 8000ft in different directions.

                  Not a single word about messengers

                  The next day.
                  The first full attack was detected about 0907 when a high-level formation of about 19 LG1 Ju88s escorted by 16 1 / JG77 Bf109s.

                  Messers appeared.
                  The C Hurricanes (are they better than the buffalo ??) fighting the 109s. One hit by a Brit, one damaged. No smashing. They tell me about the absurdity of buffalo in '41.

                  Fighter Controllers directed the air patrol to intercept the 24 Ju88 bombers of I and II / LG1 some 25 miles out from the convoy.

                  No messers

                  carpenter the next day

                  First Wave: The Italians came first with 10 S84 bombers of 28 Gruppe 32 Stormo and eight Cr42 biplane bombers. Fourteen Mc202s provided escort.

                  The attack was repulsed by the Fulmars. Again. Fulmaram. Although against pasta, it inspires.

                  Second Wave: Five minutes after the first strike, a larger attack developed. This time some 40 torpedo bombers were to approach simultaneously from two directions. One side was allocated nine S79s and 10 S84s covered by 14 Re2001s. On the other was to be 21 S79s with 12 Re2001s.

                  The attack was repulsed by anti-aircraft guns and fighters.

                  Third Wave: The Germans arrived next. It was late.
                  The German Ju88s of KG54 and KG77 out of Catania and Comiso in Sicily had successfully joined with their Me109 escort. The 37 bombers and 21 fighters rendezvoused over Elmas, Sardinia.

                  So, messers appeared a second time
                  Fulmara and Sea Harry are in the air. The line of Germans crashed and a massive attack did not work.
                  What the messengers did is not clear at all.

                  Most massive attack
                  The Regia Aeronautica's plans involved some 105 aircraft attacking in three waves.

                  The Germans again made attempts to coordinate their attack with the Italians. At 1730, 20 German Ju87Ds of II Fliegerkorps escorted by a flight of Me109s took off from their base in Sicily. They were joined by about 20 Ju88s.

                  A squadron of pieces damaged the Indomable. Without the cover of the messengers
                  In the air against them were three Martlets, 12 Hurricanes and six Fulmars.


                  Well, how do you like the escort messengers? "a flight", charming, no ??

                  The final Axis effort for the day was carried out by 12 S79 torpedo bombers and 28 Italian Ju87Rs.

                  No messers

                  Summary.
                  So, for the entire time of the operation, messengers appeared in commercial quantities as many as two times and did not have any effect on the database. This is what the real picture of the confrontation looks like. The British in 42, not without success, use si harri and, God forgive me, fulmars in a wasp's nest, and they tell me that it's funny when it's a buffalo.

                  LOL what? Are we already discussing an alternative? It is necessary to warn, actually.


                  Lol then. Is reality hard and hard to come to terms with? It happens.

                  Since you are at the stage of denial, you will probably have to remind

                  Illastries trimmed by Hozzel and company two weeks after their arrival in Sicily
                  He was never seen again in Mediterranean.
                  Formidebl was damaged on his first sailing out to sea during the Battle of Crete.
                  Until Torch did not meddle in Mediterranean.
                  Victories and Indomitable dropped in to get revenge at the Pedestal. Before that, they were not there. Indomitable got caught in a jug and fled. Formidable didn't show up in Cutgem until Torch. Indomitable did not appear at all

                  They were all swept out with a broom. The Angles could not enter the aircraft carrier of the closed theater of operations. Even the sacred TK did not help))))
                18. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 31 December 2020 13: 45
                  +2
                  Perhaps for today I am exhausted. Moreover, at the root of our disagreements are really prejudices - the British could not do anything reasonable with you, and with me, the Americans cannot be right, only if by chance.

                  So for now, let's fix your point of view on the Mediterranean. Happy offline!

                  drinks
                19. Engineer
                  Engineer 31 December 2020 14: 16
                  0
                  Moreover, at the root of our disagreements there are indeed prejudices

                  That's right. laughing I can't believe we came to an agreement
                  Happy offline!

                  It was interesting to cross swords, my best wishes

                  For the eradication of covid and lymephilia in the new year bully
                  drinks
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 29 December 2020 15: 39
    0
    Considering the quality of the British aircraft carrier fighters, booking the flight deck of the Victories was very useful wink yes
  • Engineer
    Engineer 29 December 2020 15: 48
    0
    Nobody argues.
    But when designing aircraft carriers, no one suspected the low efficiency of fighters. It turned out by itself.
    The poor quality of aviation was superimposed on the crooked concept. As a result, they had to rely on armor and anti-aircraft guns. Which is actually nonsense.
  • roll
    roll 3 January 2021 13: 26
    0
    British concept: Aircraft carrier - suffered.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 17: 08
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    26 wasp slayers would have set up a slaughterhouse there. The Germans could count on 1-2 hits

    Suddenly, one remembers the samurai breakthrough to York one and a half years later.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 29 December 2020 13: 01
    +1
    And who are the "dolbychane"?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 29 December 2020 13: 18
      0
      The unlucky descendants of Drake and Nelson
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 29 December 2020 13: 31
        +3
        You obviously represent a country that, in terms of building and using the navy, is very far ahead of these unlucky descendants?
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 29 December 2020 13: 32
          -1
          Japan and the United States for 1941
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 29 December 2020 13: 36
            +2
            You, apparently, did not understand me. I meant that you are probably a representative of a country that has overtaken the British so far in the naval area that you can call them "dumblings".
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 29 December 2020 13: 44
              -1
              Yes, we are bad at sea. Well, the demand is not great. The fleet in Russia is like our national football team. And about the same is necessary
              I call the British so because for them the fleet was vital. But they stubbornly screwed up the entire first half of the 20th century. And all the time out of the blue with incredible fail.
              Plus, it was not only sad for them with the fleet.
              For me, the systemic crisis and all-round degradation of Britain in the 20th century are obvious. The fleet could still drag, but mainly with a numerical advantage or against a so-so enemy.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 29 December 2020 14: 34
                +4
                Britain is a country of a systemic crisis of the XNUMXth century, which means that its inhabitants are Dolbychan. I'm afraid to imagine how, in the light of the above, they call the inhabitants of Russia.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Engineer
                Engineer 29 December 2020 15: 11
                -1
                Answer deleted without explanation or warning from the moderator. Strange
              4. Undecim
                Undecim 29 December 2020 15: 58
                +2
                Obviously, the moderator could not appreciate the full depth of your patriotism. Send it in a personal, maybe I can evaluate, let's say, privately.
              5. Engineer
                Engineer 29 December 2020 19: 57
                0
                Russia and Britain approached the 20th century with different luggage.
                Russia is a country of contradictions. Everything new was born in pain and died prematurely. There was a lack of technology, capital, education. The reasons are objective. Nobody canceled the national rake race, but these attempts were precisely the result of despair. They may not be an excuse, but an explanation.
                Britain in the early 20th century is the greatest state formation in history. With a century-old balance, advanced technology, the best higher education, the pound as the world currency.
                And then it started.
                Germany overtakes the metropolis in development at the beginning of the century, then in the 30s and 50s. After the wars lost with a bang.
                Germany builds a qualitatively better navy, although it has a priority in the army, and Britain allows jerky shoals, although it is a top priority for it.
                By 1941, Japan is similarly pursuing a qualitative superiority of the navy.
                The British army in both world wars is weird and stubbornly refuses to learn anything.
                In aviation, the Bomber Command, having collected resources comparable to the US Air Force 8, stupidly kills tens of thousands of the best sons of the fatherland and hundreds of thousands of enemy non-combatants.
                Therefore, Britain of the 20th century is the main contender for the title of the country durakoff for me.
              6. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 29 December 2020 23: 32
                +1
                Quote: Engineer
                Therefore, Britain of the 20th century is the main contender for the title of the country durakoff for me.

                )))

                Well, there are quite a few nominees in the category "kill yourself against the wall". You just love Britain very much.

                What, I don’t know, does Argentina do for you?

                Although it is difficult to argue that the XNUMXth century can hardly be called the "century of Britain".
              7. Engineer
                Engineer 30 December 2020 00: 16
                0
                What, I don’t know, does Argentina do for you?

                Did Argentina have all this?
                With a century-old balance, advanced technology, the best higher education, the pound as the world currency.

                People don't remember very well what fantastic opportunities the British Empire had.
                When from India alone in the 18-19 centuries were exported values ​​of a billion old pounds.
                When the country could just buy Suez Canal.
                And this fabulous advantage was lost, roughly speaking, over two decades, followed by a continuous decline.
                Who are the British of the 20th century after that?
              8. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 30 December 2020 00: 39
                +2
                Quote: Engineer
                Did Argentina have all this?

                Argentina had the standard of living of a 1st world country, but it turned out something like this.
                Quote: Engineer
                When from India alone in the 18-19 centuries, valuables worth a billion old pounds were exported.

                As the little ones say, you cannot build happiness on someone else's grief. The Spaniards checked.
                Quote: Engineer
                followed by continuous decline.

                Well, at the expense of "continuous decline" you are a little worried. Not everyone can boast of such a decline, not everyone.
                Quote: Engineer
                Who are the British of the 20th century after that?

                The British are people who were able to move from an empire to a nation state with minimal losses for themselves. Perhaps the Dutch overtook them in this respect. Everyone else has either blood, a lot of blood, or oh.

                And remembering the former greatness is mostly itchy for Russians. If the Italians with the first Rome or the Germans with the HRE hadn’t calmed down yet, everyone would have drunk themselves to hell and built Omsk. Hello to this beautiful city.
              9. unknown
                unknown 30 December 2020 21: 37
                0
                The "collapse" of the empire was a boon for the British. By rebuilding relations with the colonies, placing them on real commodity-money relations, the former metropolis only won.
                The Italians very quickly calmed down with the "first Rome". You cannot restore what was not. The true "Roman Empire" is the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.
                Much to the north ... Erdogan and his "Ottoman Empire" took the same slippery path. The real Turks, the descendants of the Churkmen and Uryuk tribes, of which there are fifteen percent in modern Turkey, have nothing to do with the "Ottoman Empire", mainly Armenian, Russian, Circassian and Kurdish.
            2. unknown
              unknown 30 December 2020 21: 29
              0
              There were no fantastic opportunities. Britain really got India in the second half of the nineteenth century, after the collapse of the empire of Napoleon III (really the only one). There were no special values ​​in the form of gold and precious stones in India. Mostly cotton was exported, and especially opium.
              The so-called "tea" clippers, these speed messengers, were actually "opium" ones.
              Britain invested more in the development of its colonies than it received.
              That is clearly shown by the audit. Produced after the "collapse" of the empire.
              Definitely unprofitable "enterprise".
              As they say, greed ruined the frayer ...
              Bit off more than they could swallow ...
          2. roll
            roll 3 January 2021 13: 37
            0
            Britain as an empire - yes, the British as a people - without noticeable losses, the standard of living relative to the leaders is quite comparable, the losses in WWI are large, in the second, bearable. In the end, Londograd in England, but without a hint of a Moscow bury ...
        2. unknown
          unknown 30 December 2020 21: 21
          0
          Russia is not a country of contradictions.
          The so-called "great October socialist revolution" - the "orange revolution" to destroy the country. Financed and managed externally.
          Relying on the comprador elite, which turned out to be profitable to export assets and zero social obligations. And in which country of the "Western world" did this happen?
        3. roll
          roll 3 January 2021 13: 42
          0
          Just the elites of the Republic of Ingushetia were exclusively stupid and had only a few alternate airfield, for which they paid. The current ones have learned a lesson from the stupidity of their predecessors, but they have not learned it enough, they keep too much of their assets in Russia, for which they will be punished.
      2. roll
        roll 3 January 2021 13: 31
        0
        In terms of loss percentage, there is only one single gold medalist in the 20th century for the title of country durakoff. Inadequate assessment of oneself and the enemy, cunning and stupidity ...
  • roll
    roll 3 January 2021 13: 28
    0
    ... ..... .... losers ..... ...... 95% of the coalition losses on the battlefield ..... .....
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 December 2020 18: 08
    +4
    The systemic crisis in Britain began in the early 50s. I.e,
    in the second half of the 20th century.
    In World War II, they were quite up to par.
    Defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940, in case you forgot.
    Fighters and bombers produced good, in large quantities,
    than in Germany.
    Radar air defense was created, the first in the world.
    And their fleet also performed very well, on the whole.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 19: 01
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The systemic crisis in Britain began in the early 50s. I.e,
    in the second half of the 20th century.

    The systemic crisis began during the First World War, which in relation to the fleet resulted in the rupture of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, the signing of the Washington, two London and several interstate treaties on the limitation of naval arms.
    The Empire's navel is untied ...
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 December 2020 19: 58
    +2
    The USSR and the USA signed several agreements on the reduction
    nuclear weapons.
    According to your logic, someone's belly button is untied? laughing
    Why reasonable international treaties to limit or reduce
    any weapons indicate a crisis of countries or empires?
    Rather, the opposite is true. Indicate the political maturity of the participants.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 20: 03
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Rather, the opposite is true. Indicate the political maturity of the participants.

    And you read the texts of the 1st and 2nd London treaties ...
    Also, look for why Britain signed the Washington Treaty.
    Look at the "mature member" ...
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 41
    0
    Breaking the Anglo-Japanese treaty for Britain, strange as it may seem, was a blessing.
    In astrology, there is the concept of "vector pair". In this pair, one is the master, the other is the servant.
    In a pair of sea signs, the Rat and the Monkey (the rest are land), the Rat (Great Britain) is the servant, and the Monkey (Japan) is the master.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 47
    0
    Quote: ignoto
    In astrology, there is the concept of "vector pair".

    Or maybe we can do without the otherworldly?
  • unknown
    unknown 1 January 2021 10: 23
    0
    Oddly enough, this is not otherworldly ...
    In psychology, there are about fifty theories of personality.
    And they ALL work.
    The percentage of confidence in any theory that works is seventy percent.
    Astrological theory allows you to level the main problem of any theory of personality - motivation.
    My life experience has convinced me that you cannot give up any source of information.
    Analysis of all sources allows you to create a more voluminous and more objective picture.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 29 December 2020 20: 02
    0
    Expandedly answered Undecim above
    I'll add here. The British fleet in the First World War is a shame. So radically merge the quality advantage it must be contrived.
    Defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940, in case you forgot

    The only strategic success in the first three years of the war. Moreover, when they tried to launch a counteroffensive in the air in 1941, it all ended in an even greater embarrassment than that of the Luftwaffe in 1940.
    Fighters and bombers produced good, in large quantities,
    than in Germany.

    They just used it at times more stupid than the Germans.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 December 2020 20: 30
    +4
    "The only strategic success in the first three years of the war" ///
    ----
    They saved their country from foreign invasion, didn't they?
    Next, the second strategic success: Al-Alamein.
    The defeat of Rommel's expeditionary corps and, as a result,
    withdrawal of Italy, Hitler's main ally, from the war.
    Not the Battle of Kursk, of course, but it also does not attract a "systemic crisis", somehow ... smile
    And to find fault: "how the planes were used, how they missed naval victories" -
    not difficult.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 20: 50
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    They saved their country from foreign invasion, didn't they?

    Of course they did, because the Germans did not have the resources to invade.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 December 2020 21: 02
    +3
    In the "Battle of England" the Germans lost 1/4 of their fighters and 1/3 of their bombers.
    And what can be an amphibious assault without air and sea supremacy?
    So the resources moved - on dry land - to the east ...
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 21: 44
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    and at sea?

    And that the Germans once had dominance at sea?
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 50
    0
    Neither quantity nor quality.
    In the overwhelming number of ship classes.
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 48
    0
    Of course, not the Battle of Kursk ...
    The United Kingdom and the United States built around 45000 strategic bombers.
    Many, very many.
    But ... the irrecoverable losses of Great Britain (metropolis with colonies) in WWII are about 400000 people.
    The USA lost about the same amount.
    Hungary, with a population of about 9 million, lost 400000 irrevocably.
    And Romania, with a population of about 15 million people, irrevocably lost 1 million 200 thousand people, that is, the same as Hungary, the British Empire and the United States combined.
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 18
    0
    British history is fake.
    In reality, Britain began to rise in the early nineteenth century, when it was made the first offshore, pumped up with continental money, and opened up when the empire of Napoleon, the so-called third (he is the only real one), was defeated.
    But, for a long time it was not enough. The audit showed that the empire was unprofitable. The resources of the metropolis were not enough to equip the colonies to such a stage as to make real profits. It's like in the Soviet Union: how many Russians did not invest in national republics, and the standard of living in the RSFSR was lower.
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 10
    0
    From the point of view of geographic astrology, only the Rat and the Monkey are sea signs. Rat-UK. Monkey Japan.
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 08
    0
    The real history of the last human civilization is the nineteenth century.
    Traditional history is not science, but part of fiction.
    Section of unscientific fiction.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 20
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      The real history of the last human civilization is the nineteenth century.

      We will wait for this to be recognized by official history, but for now this is a terry conspiracy theories. :)
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 January 2021 10: 30
        0
        Unfortunately, the official history is full of conspiracy theories.
        The traditional historical concept began to crumble when people with high-quality technical education began to study it and check the reliability of the facts.
        The main question they raised was the question of how the material side of historical events corresponded to the technological side. Then EVERYTHING fell down. Moreover, thoroughly.
        I'm sorry. It is a pity to part with the usual fairy tale, to which many years of life and professional activity have been devoted. But, you need to live in reality, not illusions.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 January 2021 10: 56
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          The traditional historical concept began to crumble when people with high-quality technical education began to study it and check the reliability of the facts.

          I do not argue... :)
          The concept is very interesting, sometimes controversial, but so far only as a concept, since quantity has not yet been able to develop into quality. Too many hypo-fighters have run into this business, who, without knowing the technical details, begin to philosophize.
          1. unknown
            unknown 1 January 2021 11: 01
            0
            I agree.
            While the process of accumulation of critical mass is underway.
            Everything, as always, takes time.
            But, the process has begun ...
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 04
    0
    "Mogami" is not a counterpart, but in "light" reincarnation - "white elephant".
    Such light cruisers were not envisioned by the Japanese concept of using cruisers.
    From the word at all.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 22
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      Such light cruisers were not envisioned by the Japanese concept of using cruisers.

      It is you now you know ...
      And then neither the British nor the Americans knew this.
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 January 2021 10: 35
        0
        I agree. The Japanese deceived everyone. Not surprising. In the East, the Monkey sign is the most intelligent. But the Japanese are very let down by the language.
        If you translate into the language of IT specialists, the Japanese have high-quality hardware, and the software is lame.
        There is such a funny discipline called psycholinguistics. Considers a language as an operating system. But the Japanese are in trouble with this. It's like buying a modern and very powerful computer, but loading it with a primitive and outdated operating system.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 12: 49
    +2
    Quote: Engineer
    The real rate of fire is faded against the background of amers.

    I have said more than once that reasoning about this or that rate of fire is a thing in itself.
    They didn't shoot like that in battle ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 29 December 2020 15: 34
      0
      Absolutely agree. At pistol distances, yes, you can work to the maximum. An example is the destruction of Sydney by Cormoran. And at decent distances, the time between volleys will be equal to the flight time of the shells to the enemy + the time to make adjustments. Because it (rate of fire) is a subjective thing
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 15: 52
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        And at decent distances, the time between volleys will be equal to the flight time of the shells to the enemy + the time to make adjustments.

        Here, too, not everything is so simple. It all depends on the specific situation in the battle.
        For example, now you described the way Schneider fired in the Danish Strait: volley - proofreading - volley ...
        That is why it took 5 volleys and 5 minutes to sink the Hood.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 29 December 2020 16: 02
          0
          I do not argue. In any case, the combat rate of fire is less than the technical one.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 16: 22
            0
            Quote: Rurikovich
            I do not argue. In any case, the combat rate of fire is less than the technical one.

            I am tormented by vague doubts that any weapon, and even more so the ship's battery (I mean the entire main battery of the ship) will generally be able to fire in battle with a technical rate of fire.
            Naturally, I'm talking about the WWII period, now it's easier with that ...
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 29 December 2020 16: 28
              +1
              Yes it is clear laughing They just like us, if anything, to cite the rate of fire almost as the most powerful argument. Especially on paper ...
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 21: 01
    0
    The Japanese cruiser had a large salvo mass, but fired no more per minute than the British.
    Moreover, the Japanese cannot be viewed as a rival.
    Japanese light cruisers were intended for very different activities.
    They were built for what destroyer leaders were able to handle in European fleets.
    If the Mogami-class cruisers had not been rebuilt into heavy cruisers, as originally planned, they would have remained "white elephants" without a specific tactical purpose.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 30 December 2020 21: 25
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      If the Mogami-class cruisers had not been rebuilt into heavy cruisers, as originally planned, they would have remained "white elephants" without a specific tactical purpose.

      And what prevented, in this case, from using them as "leaders" of destroyers?
      In what way is "Mogami" worse than any "Sendai" or "Nagara"?
      1. unknown
        unknown 1 January 2021 10: 45
        0
        There are two problems here.
        First, the Mogami is redundant for leading destroyers. In everything. Primarily in terms of cost. And on the resources that must be used to create it. You can't build many of these cruisers.
        Secondly, even with outstanding combat qualities, when used in accordance with the Japanese concept, a Mogami-class cruiser, when leading a formation of destroyers, will receive as an enemy, at best, a Cleveland-class cruiser formation, and at worst, a mixed formation from light cruisers like "Brooklyn" and heavy cruisers. That is, one against several.
        Thus, it turns out that if, for some reason, the Mogami-class cruisers remained light, they would be used in the formations of heavy cruisers, remaining "white elephants".
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 1 January 2021 10: 52
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          Secondly, even with outstanding combat qualities, when used in accordance with the Japanese concept, a Mogami-class cruiser, when leading a formation of destroyers, will receive as an enemy, at best, a Cleveland-class cruiser formation, and at worst, a mixed formation from light cruisers like "Brooklyn" and heavy cruisers. That is, one against several.

          Would it be different with the "sendai"?

          Quote: ignoto
          Thus, it turns out that if, for some reason, the Mogami-class cruisers remained light, they would be used in the formations of heavy cruisers, remaining "white elephants".

          Who knows... :)
  • Usher
    Usher 30 December 2020 18: 51
    -1
    Where are the handsome men?
  • unknown
    unknown 30 December 2020 20: 54
    0
    The pinnacle of development was the first series of "Towns".
    In the second series, increased stresses of the hull structures were already observed.
    These problems were aggravated even more on the ships of the last series, which caused serious damage to the Edinburgh during a storm in the spring of 1940, and very severe damage to the Belfast when it was blown up by a mine on November 21, 1939.
  • evmarine
    evmarine 29 December 2020 09: 55
    +1
    A typical 1930s light cruiser, like all British people, looks solid and stern. I personally like it. Main battery protection is insufficient, and in general, successful multipurpose ships.
    1. unknown
      unknown 30 December 2020 21: 59
      0
      Typical for the British.
      And for other countries?
      Light cruisers, with a displacement of heavy ones, with improved protection, armed with 12-15 main battery guns, were built only by Great Britain and the USA.
      Moreover, the USSR laid the foundation, but did not complete it.
      "Mogami" does not count. For their "light" variant, the Japanese had no clear tactical purpose. "White Elephant", which very quickly returned to "his" class.
      The only European analogues of the "Towns" were the "Garibaldi" -class cruisers.
      The displacement is similar, the speed is close, the main battery guns are slightly less (10), but the firing range is greater. The mass of the armor is greater. A lot more.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 31 December 2020 10: 22
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        And for other countries?

        Generally, the agreements were in effect: some chose their quotas, some did not ...
  • Potter
    Potter 29 December 2020 10: 17
    +3
    Towns, especially the last and third series, are the best light cruisers of Her Majesty's fleet of this time. Even the "colonies" that followed them, squeezed in displacement, with a dense layout, became a deterioration, the payment for which was the forced removal of the 4th main turret on some of the ships to strengthen the MZA. Thank you for the article.
    1. unknown
      unknown 30 December 2020 22: 04
      0
      The first episode is the best. The second and third had serious problems with increasing the stress of the hull structures.
      "Colonies" - not bad in design, but as a result turned into an analogue of "La Galissoniera", only in a larger displacement, similar weapons, and weaker armor.
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 31 December 2020 10: 24
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        The second and third had serious problems with increasing the stress of the hull structures.

        And where can the British read about the problems with the hulls of the "town" series 2?
        1. unknown
          unknown 1 January 2021 10: 50
          0
          Specifically, the British, I will not indicate.
          But, such information is available in Patyanin's monograph.
          At the end of the monograph, a list of references and sources is given.
          Mostly foreign language.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 1 January 2021 12: 59
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            But, such information is available in Patyanin's monograph.

            Thank you ...
            So I'll ask him.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 December 2020 10: 26
    +3
    A noticeable feature of all British three-gun turrets, including on subsequent cruisers, was the shift of the middle barrel by 76 cm back. This was done in order to eliminate the mutual influence of muzzle gases during a salvo and to prevent the dispersion of shells when fired.

    In theory, this should have worked. But alas, in the early "Towns" practice refused to coincide with theory:
    The early Southampton ("Town") class cruisers experienced dispersion problems with spreads up to 700 yards (640 m) being recorded. It was thought that air currents set up by the wing shells were affecting the flight of the center projectile, even though the center gun was set back to reduce the problems.
    © navweaps
    That is, despite the shift back of the central trunk of the BSh GK, the problem with dispersion did not disappear - it reached 700 yards (640 m).
    The solution was the introduction of a chain for delaying the firing of the central barrel, which reduced dispersion due to additional "spreading" of shells during a salvo.
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 11: 12
    +3
    Because intelligence reported that the Japanese were going to build a dozen ships of the Mogami class, respectively, the British needed to have two dozen (or even more) of the same Linders in order to somehow resist.

    Can you see British sources confirming this information?

    Because 35 knots on which the Mogami and its 15 155-mm barrels could go was very unpleasant to understand.

    A page from Jane, 33. Where there are 35 nodes is not clear.


    Already not quite a light cruiser, but also not a heavy one, which started from 10 tons. But everything was ahead ...

    The author never bothered to read the contracts ... :)
    Especially the 1st London.

    Then he was again transferred to the North and took part in escorting convoys and the battle at North Cape. Received a salvo from the Scharnhorst that damaged the engines. But in the end, the Scharnhorst was sunk.

    I wonder WHAT a person off-topic would think after reading something like that ... wassat
  • dgonni
    dgonni 29 December 2020 14: 06
    +2
    Yes, the Britons once knew how to build ships. Durable, reliable with excellent seakeeping and autonomy. Not the best in speed, but their passport maximum speed and economical were given out in fact throughout the entire service.
    They would still know what the Mogami will turn into, then they probably would have built completely different ships!
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 29 December 2020 14: 44
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      They would still know what the Mogami will turn into, then they probably would have built completely different ships!

      Wouldn't build. The British are the last who would like to violate the treaties they themselves are breaking through.
    2. unknown
      unknown 30 December 2020 22: 09
      0
      Italian "Zary" in real life went 28-29 knots. Enough.
      "Mogami" - ship - "werewolf".
      "White Elephant" in a "light version", which absolutely does not fit into the Japanese concept of using light cruisers. He instigated a "revolution" in the light cruiser class, and quickly returned to "his" class.
  • hostel
    hostel 31 December 2020 02: 17
    0
    And the Japanese, in the end, deceived everyone, replacing five towers with 152 mm artillery, with five towers with 203 mm artillery, since the cruiser was built with this pirouette in mind. But it didn't help them. Still, quantity is more desirable than quality.
    1. unknown
      unknown 1 January 2021 10: 52
      0
      It's not just the quantity but also the use.
  • certero
    certero 6 January 2021 23: 13
    +1
    Quote: ignoto
    After the "collapse" of the British Empire, an audit was ordered.
    A serious audit, not for show, but for yourself, to understand what went wrong.

    In such cases, a link to a document or an article describing these facts is provided as evidence.
    And without that, let me not believe in these tales.
  • certero
    certero 6 January 2021 23: 15
    0
    Thank you, very interesting article! By the way, it shows well how powerful German aviation was. When 12 u87 sank such a well-armed cruiser.
  • certero
    certero 6 January 2021 23: 19
    0
    Quote: ignoto
    On the territory of modern China, there are no burials of representatives of the yellow race over 150 years old.

    It looks like you celebrated the holidays very well. firstly, how is the yellow race distinguished from any other? Because genny analysis in this case does not give anything. Secondly, a link to some scientific research on this topic that confirms your words