Military Review

The largest cannons in history. Marine calibers

141

Battleship HMS Benbow with 413 mm guns


The second half of the XNUMXth century was a kind of rehearsal for the arms race, which culminated in the First World War. During this period, military engineers developed more and more advanced and powerful weapons, including for fleet... At the end of the XNUMXth century, several projects of ships were created in Great Britain and Italy, the main emphasis in which was placed precisely on the caliber of the artillery used.

The distribution of large-caliber artillery in the fleet was significantly influenced by the civil war in the United States, during which the parties to the conflict massively used artillery, including quite destructive and monstrous samples. Such tools included, for example, Rodman's Columbiade. Manufactured in 1863, the gun had a caliber of 381 mm and a weight of 22,6 tons. Also in the civil war in the United States were noted 13-inch (330 mm) mortars "Dictator", which were installed even on railway platforms.

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 also contributed. The experience of the American Civil War was used this time in the Old World. During the siege of Paris, the Prussian army also used railway platforms to place guns of special power and shell the city from different directions.

The next logical step was the deployment of large caliber artillery on ships. In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns. These 280-mm guns in the XX century could hardly surprise anyone, but at that time they looked very impressive on a warship.


280 mm guns on HMS Temeraire

It is all the more surprising that just a few years later, even larger caliber guns appeared on the battleships of Great Britain and Italy, surpassing in this indicator the main caliber of most future battleships of both world wars.

Admiral Benbow's main caliber


The battleship with the familiar to everyone who read in childhood the novel by Robert Stevenson "Treasure Island", the name Admiral "Benbow", received two destructive weapons as the main weapon. It was the last of six Royal Navy Admiral-class barbet battleships built. It differed from the five ships of its predecessors by the presence of two huge 110-ton 413-mm guns, which were its main caliber.

The ship HMS Benbow was completely identical to the battleships HMS Camperdown and HMS Anson, differing from their sisterships only in armament. Instead of four 343-mm guns, the designers placed two 413-mm guns on it - one each at the bow and stern of the vessel. It is believed that the changes in the configuration and composition of the main caliber guns of the battleship were associated with the emerging shortage of 343 mm guns. This version looks a little odd considering that the 413mm guns themselves were a much more scarce item.

According to another version, at Admiral Benbow, the British fleet wanted to work out a new concept of warships, as well as the use of super-powerful artillery. The so-called "idea of ​​a knockout blow" on an enemy ship from a super-powerful weapon. The idea was to defeat the enemy ship and disable it with just one hit. Also, this ship seemed to be a logical response to Italian experiments with large-caliber naval artillery.


Battleship Admiral Benbow in one of the ports on the Mediterranean

This theory did not justify itself in any way, but at the end of the 413th century it still had many supporters. In reality, the choice in favor of two 343-mm guns, located in single barbette installations, instead of four XNUMX-mm guns, influenced the combat value of the battleship only in a negative way.

The British developed 413-mm guns on the basis of the 432-mm guns previously ordered by the Italians, which were intended for the battleship Andrea Doria. The guns were created by engineers at Armstrong Whitworth. In total, 12 unique guns were produced, which received the designation 413-mm / 30 BL Mk I. Almost each of the guns was manufactured according to separate drawings, for this reason, many elements of the guns were not unified. All of them had one or another design difference from each other, while the main characteristics of the guns were almost the same.

To avoid confusion, each gun had its own number from 1 to 12. The first two assembled guns were placed on the battleship Benbow. They were installed in barbets measuring 18,29 by 13,72 meters. In addition, there was a variant of placing these guns in a two-gun turret mount. The barbets on the battleship Benbow were pear-shaped fortified structures, each of which was equipped with only one weapon.

The guns themselves were placed on a rotating platform and were equipped with a hydraulic drive. The hydraulic drive was responsible for pointing the guns in a vertical plane. Horizontal aiming at the target was provided by rotating the platform. In theory, the rate of fire of monstrous guns was 0,29-0,33 rounds per minute, but in practice this figure did not exceed one shot every 4-5 minutes.

The largest cannons in history. Marine calibers
Cannon 413 mm / 30 BL Mk I on a test carriage

The barrels of 413-mm guns were designed for 104 rounds, however, in practice, their geometry began to be violated after the implementation of literally several volleys. The maximum firing range of the guns was 11 meters with an initial projectile speed of 340 m / s. The arsenal of guns included not only armor-piercing and high-explosive shells, but also shrapnel. For example, Palliser's armor-piercing shells featured a body made of red-hot cast iron weighing 636 kg. Such ammunition was supplied with an explosive charge weighing 816,46 kg, which was detonated by a bottom fuse.

413 mm / 30 BL Mk I guns included in history also under the designation Elswick 110 ton gun (after the name of the Elswick Ship Building Yard), are rightfully considered one of the largest-caliber and powerful guns in the history of not only the Royal Navy, but the entire world artillery. Despite the impressive caliber, the guns were extremely limited in capabilities and potential due to their too large mass and low structural reliability.

The disadvantages of the guns were also attributed to the high complexity of maintenance and low rate of fire. Although at a distance of 910 meters, the shells fired from these guns could penetrate 810 mm of armor, the armor penetration of the guns at that time was absolutely unclaimed. For this reason, they were significantly inferior to the simpler and faster-firing 305-mm and 343-mm guns, the firing range of which grew continuously.

Harbinger of "Yamato" 1876


Even before the appearance of the British battleship Admiral Benbow, which was commissioned in 1888, the Italian navy received a ship with much more monstrous weapons. Only the famous battleship "Yamato" could compete with it in caliber. We are talking about the battleship Caio Duilio, which was launched on May 8, 1876.


Italian squadron battleship Caio Duilio

The battleship, which became the lead in a series of two ships, was built for the Italian naval forces according to the design of the engineer Benedetto Brin. The ship got its name in honor of the famous Roman naval commander Gaius Duilius, who was credited with the first naval victory in the history of the Roman fleet. Within the framework of this project, the Italians tried to implement their doctrine of "individual superiority", which they continued to implement in their other projects.

The concept was to build ships that were guaranteed to be stronger than the enemy. For Italy, which did not have great industrial and financial potential and was unable to compete with Great Britain at sea, this approach with a focus on quality rather than number of ships seemed justified.

The Italian admirals counted on achieving "individual superiority" at the expense of the most powerful guns. The battleship Caio Duilio was armed with four 450 mm RML 17.72 inch gun, located in pairs in two turrets. Weighing almost 100 tons, the guns were the most powerful muzzle-loading rifled guns in history.

Eight guns ordered in Britain for two ships of the Caio Duilio project cost the Italians a very decent amount at that time - 4,5 million lire, which was comparable to the cost of a fully equipped and equipped battleship of the previous series.


Tower of the battleship Caio Duilio with 450 mm guns

In the arsenal of these guns were armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation shells and shrapnel. At the same time, the rate of fire of the guns was not at all impressive. The maximum rate of fire did not exceed one shot every six minutes, and this is in the presence of a calculation of 35 people. This significantly limited the combat capabilities of the ship.

In this case, the initial velocity of a projectile weighing approximately 910 kg was 472 m / s. The guns were distinguished by a small maximum firing range - no more than 6000 meters. Although at this distance, an armor-piercing 450 mm projectile could still penetrate up to 394 mm of armor. At a distance of 1800 meters, armor penetration was 500 mm. With a caliber of 450 mm, the length of the gun was only 9953 mm, which did not have the best effect on the firing range.

The battleship Caio Duilio surprisingly combined a number of completely innovative ideas (a complete rejection of sailing weapons, the presence of a dock-hangar for a minion boat in the stern, a strong armor belt), which together gave not a positive, but a negative result. The designers of the battleship, in an effort to bring the concept of a battleship to perfection, brought it to the point of absurdity.

The monster guns were housed in progressive enclosed main-caliber turrets, but they were loaded from the muzzle on the outside of the turret and had a monstrously low rate of fire. For this reason, the impressive 910 kg shells in battle would have little chance of hitting the enemy. In turn, enemy ships with rapid-fire artillery would quickly turn the Italian battleship into a colander.


450 mm RML 17.72 inch gun in Gibraltar

By the way, the 550-mm armor of the ship, almost invulnerable to artillery, was placed in a rather narrow strip along the waterline for 52 meters, that is, it covered half of the length of the ship. Neither this armor nor the division of the ship's hull into 83 watertight compartments would have saved from shelling with more advanced rapid-fire guns, even when meeting a cruiser.

True, at least some plus in such an unusual choice of weapons by the Italians could be found if desired. The British were shocked by the Italian order and the new battleships and began to spend money on such artillery themselves. In particular, they built similar guns and placed them in coastal batteries to protect Malta and Gibraltar.
Author:
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mmaxx
    mmaxx 28 March 2021 05: 32
    +10
    Eh! ... What an era! Steam, cars, guns. Big cars, huge guns. No stinking airplanes or cars. No electricity. The triumph of human strength. Now Jules Verne even has no prerequisites to appear.
    No wonder they love steampunk so much now.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 28 March 2021 05: 52
      +8
      Age of dinosaurs smile.. in the end, small mammals will survive anyway.
      Now a small rocket boat will easily drown such a mastodon.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 28 March 2021 06: 19
      +14
      If not sarcasm, then on the same "Aurora", the coal reserve was about 900 tons, imagine a bunch of such, the power reserve is up to 6 thousand km, depending on the speed. The sailors were dirty as hell, blacker than that Maxim.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 12: 52
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        If not sarcasm, then on the same "Aurora", the coal reserve was about 900 tons, imagine a bunch of this ,.

    3. Intruder
      Intruder 28 March 2021 07: 08
      +16
      No electricity
      by the way, you are wrong !!! There was a lot of electricity on these monsters, not all steam drives were controlled by mechanics with the hands of sailors, for example:
      Electricity for the ships (of the Brandenburg type) was provided by three, later four dynamos with a voltage of 67 V, with a total power ranging from 72,6 to 96,5 kW. On the battleship "Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm", three dynamos were immediately installed, with a total power of up to 108 kW .;
      The escorted battleship "Petropavlovsk" had a direct current electric power system: voltage of 60 V and included five steam generators "Siemens and Halske": four with a capacity of 38,4 kW each at 640 A. and one - up to 19,2 kW., At 320 A ...

      Here is the American battleship Oregon, which entered service on July 15, 1896, and its power system:



      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 28 March 2021 08: 45
        +6
        What do you want? Do you really think that I do not know about it? Write an article in response
        laughing laughing laughing
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 28 March 2021 10: 43
          +2
          Do you really think that I do not know about it?
          Not yours, (then UP to the beginning ... plizz !?)
          No electricity
          wink hi
        2. Intruder
          Intruder 28 March 2021 10: 45
          0
          Write an article in response
          not my subject, sorry .., before everything shipbuilding was interesting, but then it passed - closer to 40 years !!! drinks
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 28 March 2021 11: 38
        +6
        It was nice to show similar photos of some "Admiral", "Duilio", "Inflexible" or something similar, but earlier. Then find fault.
        Ships at that time entered service obsolete.
        In those days, the windlass was steam. Hydraulic drives had their own steam engines and so on and so forth. Teak decks ... Copper ... Have you seen? Wonderful works of industrial culture, I would tell you. They don't do that anymore. It's like the Egyptian pyramids. Or Notre Dame.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 28 March 2021 19: 35
          0
          In those days, the windlass was steam. Hydraulic drives had their own steam engines and so on and so forth. Teak decks ... Copper ... Have you seen? Wonderful works of industrial culture, I would tell you. They don't do that anymore. It's like the Egyptian pyramids. Or Notre Dame.
          I agree with you! Especially in the combination of aesthetics and industrial design, in those days ... copper and brass, even in large geometries in that era, look very harmonious works of technical genius, no doubt ... drinks !
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 19: 46
            -3
            Quote: Intruder
            .copper and brass,

            What is copper with brass? Wax was poured and the acid was boiled. Here are the grooves.
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 57
            0
            We have a long-suffering ship - the Angara icebreaker - as a "museum". English construction - "Armstrong and Whitworth", if memory serves. There were lost 1, m. B. 2, ventilation flare. The same as on the "Aurora". During the restoration, they were restored with modern technologies. So, from a kilometer away, you can see the roughness and difference from the living originals.
    4. geniy
      geniy 28 March 2021 15: 46
      +2
      Well, you are wasting your hope. Right now I am working on a fully armored ship, though not with big guns, but still with missiles (and helicopters and short take-off planes). Here I am trying to determine the armor penetration of enemy missiles in order to hold them back with thin armor. So far it is problematic. That is, it is necessary to create a ship that can withstand dozens of hits from various weapons.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 28 March 2021 20: 58
        0
        But as? It used to be possible to estimate from what angle and how it will arrive, but now - from any angle. In the light of the latest trends - you can get strictly "in the place". If the ship is a steel ball without caverns, it is not a big problem to split it if necessary.
        1. geniy
          geniy 28 March 2021 21: 28
          0
          But as? It used to be possible to estimate from what angle and how it will arrive, but now - from any angle.

          And the fact of the matter is that if earlier ships tried to fight in wake columns so as to shoot at about 90 degrees - the most unfavorable case for penetration, now the horizontal angle of hit of the rocket can be any - including very sharp, then there is a high probability of ricochets.
          But besides this, I personally hope that the armor penetration of missiles will be much worse than that of shells. Firstly, the speed of foreign anti-ship missiles is generally less than 300 m / s, and for large-caliber projectiles it is about 600 m / s, and this double speed advantage gives 4 a fourfold decrease in the kinetic energy of armor-piercing ammunition. And besides, the missile's armor-piercing warhead is much smaller in diameter than the missile itself. This means that if an anti-ship missile warhead penetrates the armor, the missile itself will remain outside and simply fall into the water. But in fact, the fuel of the rocket, be it gunpowder like Exocet or kerosene, is the main damaging factor. Because the Exocet that got to the English Sheffield continued to burn with gunpowder and caused a big fire, which caused the crew to abandon this destroyer. You can also remember the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, which was struck by a missile, it seems, P-5 with kerosene fuel and the ship burned out almost completely.
          And also the fact that the missile's armor-piercing warhead must have thick steel walls and a very small explosive charge, in contrast to a rocket with a purely high-explosive warhead. That is, an armor-piercing missile can penetrate armor, but it will introduce a very small charge of explosives inside the hull.
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 28 March 2021 21: 50
            +1
            Quote: geniy
            And also the fact that the missile's armor-piercing warhead must have thick steel walls and a very small explosive charge, in contrast to a rocket with a purely high-explosive warhead.
            More about this!
            Exocet is a funny racket against boats, practically. If we take serious vehicles of the P-500/700/800/1000 type, then there is already about two meters of armor penetration, and an explosive charge (HEAT) that is excessive for a cumulative ammunition.
            1. geniy
              geniy 29 March 2021 00: 12
              0
              then there is already about two meters of armor penetration, and an explosive charge (cumulative high-explosive) that is excessive for a cumulative ammunition.

              Personally, I strongly despise cumulative ammunition. Because they are only suitable against tanks and only if the cumulative core hits the tank's ammunition. And so there were cases when the tank withstood up to 7 hits of cumulative without hitting the ammunition, nothing special happened to the tank. And although you are right that a cumulative weighing 500 kg is capable of penetrating armor with a thickness of 2 m (and I think that it will penetrate even 5 meters), this is only monolithic armor, and this thickness does not exist on any ship. But on ships, they can easily install spaced two-layer armor - for example, on battleships of the Littorio type. And whether the cumulative can penetrate the spaced two-layer armor is not a fact - it's just that no one has ever checked it. But even if we take a completely unarmored ordinary modern ship completely without armor and with a side skin about 10 mm thick, then the cumulative in the form of a shock core will be able to pierce such a ship through and through - 20-30 meters.
              However, if there is even thin armor of the order of 50 mm on board, then the energy of the external explosion will completely dissipate and there will be only a wide dent in the side. Although in this case the impact core will sew through the ship, but I think that the size of the hole will be negligible (about 100 mm) compared even with an open window with a clear diameter of 380 mm. And a hole with a diameter of 100 mm can be easily plugged with a wooden stopper. So the water will not flow into the ship and the battleship will not sink from such a hole. So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships. Offer real armor-piercing warheads.
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 29 March 2021 07: 15
                0
                Quote: geniy
                And although you are right that a cumulative weighing 500 kg is capable of penetrating 2 m thick armor (and I think it will penetrate even 5 meters), this is only monolithic armor, and such a thickness does not exist on any ship.
                2 m maybeLo... Considering all the bulkheads and both sides ... but a shaped charge doesn't work that way: it just has effective depth and focus. So it is possible to pierce the partitions for 5 m. And then drive in excess pressure there.

                Quote: geniy
                So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships.
                They are against battleships and were created, if that!
                1. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 09: 29
                  0
                  2 m may have happened. Taking into account all bulkheads and both sides ...

                  No, you completely misunderstood me. I meant exactly solid cast steel of absolutely gigantic thickness of 2-5 METERS! That is, such an insane design that has never existed in nature. And in my opinion, a 500-kilogram cumulative missile warhead is capable of penetrating such a thickness of CAST CONTINUOUS armor, in my opinion. Why am I using this as an example then? Yes, simply because to test the armor penetration of cumulative ammunition AGAINST TANKS, they put steel CAST ARMOR 1 METER THICK - that is, 1000 mm !!!! And they punch through such a slab! And I think that this is a hoax - because if we used two-layer spaced armor, it would turn out that even the total thickness of two layers is much less than 1000 mm of cast armor. That is, all tests of armor penetration are complete fiction and deception!
                2. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 09: 40
                  0
                  So missiles with high-explosive cumulative warheads are not dangerous for armored ships.
                  They are against battleships and were created, if that!

                  I could give you an example of dozens of types of weapons over the past hundred years, which were created against what, but in real combat they suddenly turned out to be completely ineffective. For example, there were steam cannons with dynamite shells, or pyroxylin shells of the Russian fleet in the Russian-Japanese war with a water content of 30%, or on all ships of the world during the Russian-Japanese war there were ram-type stems - to ram enemy ships and board. Moreover, the ram-type stems were even on destroyers with their skin thickness of 5 mm and on tiny submarines. or German baby tanks, or German helmets with thick armor, or Soviet self-loading SVT rifles, and a lot of other types of weapons, or BT-5 tanks, or T-35 tanks. ...
                  So - what is not tested does not mean that it can work.
                  That is, the fact that high-explosive cumulative warheads were created against battleships does not mean that their designers are not fools. Because, although a cumulative warhead will pierce the battleship's armor and create a hole in it with a diameter of about 100 mm, the battleship's sailors will simply fill this hole with a wooden plug. You will remember how in Tsushima Russian armor-piercing shells perforated the sides of Japanese ships and left holes with a diameter of 305 mm, and I laughingly just hammered these holes with wooden plugs and were not going to sink.
              2. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 29 March 2021 09: 16
                +1
                My father had a subordinate officer who served in Vietnam at that time, who said that their C-75 crew hit the battleship New Jersey with two missiles. He himself was part of that battery (apparently an adviser or instructor), and the crew was Vietnamese. The complex was modified for firing at surface targets, and the missiles themselves were "simple", so the missile warheads did not explode, the propellant components burned strongly. And they flew in "otvetka", barely carried away their legs. After that, "New Jersey" went into repairs with subsequent conservation.
                For Vietnam, this officer was awarded the Order of the Red Star. Then there was a sharp turn in his service, after the academy (VIRTA) he was transferred to the Navy, changed into a black uniform and in the rank of captain of the 2nd rank he retired at the end of the 80s. Unfortunately, he died several years ago.
                I tried to find more information on this case on the Internet, but there were only a couple of mentions without details. The Vietnamese announced the defeat of the battleship, the Americans denied. But the fact that the battleship left with the subsequent setting for repair is a fact.
                1. geniy
                  geniy 29 March 2021 10: 27
                  +1
                  Dear Andrey - getting into an enemy object does not mean that he will be hit. I could give you hundreds of examples when any tanks, aircraft and ships returned to the base with hundreds of holes, but remained in the ranks. These two missiles also hit in New Jersey, and they probably even exploded, but an external explosion of a dozen kilograms of explosives will not bring any harm to the battleship - at best, it will only create minor damage in the deck superstructures - for example, a hole in the superstructure with a diameter of about a meter. And the battleship may even be sent for repairs. By the way, repairs are not only in order to remove combat damage - and repairs are sometimes needed just for repairs - that is, to remove the wear and tear of various parts of the ship from old age. Thus, I do not want to belittle the merits of the person you mentioned - he fought bravely and it was not at all his fault that anti-aircraft missiles had to be fired at the battleship. Personally, he did everything he could - he got into an enemy ship. And the fact that anti-aircraft missiles are weak against a battleship is not his fault. It's like shooting at a Tiger tank with an anti-tank rifle. It will not break through, but there is little hope that it can damage.
                  1. Andrey NM
                    Andrey NM 29 March 2021 11: 29
                    -1
                    According to the officer, the shells of missiles with heads pierced the hull of the ship, but did not explode, probably due to the fact that the fuses were under the air target. There was just a strong fire. I myself do not know the principle of the fuse and what was the revision for firing at surface targets. The very head of the C-75 carries 180kg of explosives with striking elements. If they exploded, it would not seem a little. The calculation had to leave quickly, because a retaliatory blow was struck at the launch site, they were not allowed to look at them for a long time. In general, my opinion is that in terms of their impact, the missiles are weaker than torpedoes, tk. the environment in which the shock wave propagates is different.
            2. Intruder
              Intruder 29 March 2021 07: 02
              +2
              If we take serious vehicles of the P-500/700/800/1000 type, then there is already about two meters of armor penetration, and an explosive charge (HEAT) that is excessive for a cumulative ammunition.
              You can also shy away with Caliber, there is also a "normal" penetrating high-explosive warhead:
              The first group is designated 3M-54K. These are standard missiles with a PFBCH warhead ...


              1. Simargl
                Simargl 29 March 2021 07: 11
                +1
                Quote: Intruder
                You can also shy away with Caliber
                The caliber, however, is designed for modern thin-skinned ships, not ancient battleships. For "penetration" it most likely has a tip or washer of high strength. It will not pierce thick armor.
                1. Intruder
                  Intruder 29 March 2021 08: 00
                  +1
                  For "penetration" he most likely has a tip or washer of high strength
                  400 kg., Explosives in the PFBCH, even on board the ship's armor of the late 19th, early 20th centuries, well, it will be sad for the battleship and battleship, especially below, or at the waterline level .., especially with modern mixtures:
                  The composition of the TGA mixture is a mixture of TNT (60%), RDX (24%) and aluminum powder (16%). TNT equivalent 1,5. Melts at 82 ° C. The mixture is non-hygroscopic, chemically resistant, does not interact with metals. The sensitivity to mechanical stress is greater than that of TNT; therefore, after the TGA is charged from the side of the filler neck, a protective layer of TNT with a thickness of 30-60 mm is poured into the shell of the ammunition. To reduce the sensitivity to mechanical stress, 5% of an inert phlegmatizer, Gelovax, is introduced into the TGA; the resulting mixture is called TGA-G5, its TNT equivalent is 1,4.
                  MT mixture is a complex phlegmatized mixture. Powerful (TNT equivalent of 1,62), chemically resistant explosives. The sensitivity to impact is equivalent to that of TNT, and slightly more to friction. Ammunition is filled with filling.
                  A mixture of MS (sea mixture) is a mixture of RDX (57%) with aluminum powder (17%), TNT (19%), RDX phlegmatizer (7%). TNT equivalent - 1,7. Has the same properties as blended explosives - MT.
                  1. geniy
                    geniy 29 March 2021 10: 06
                    -4
                    It is in vain that you cite the chemical composition of these explosives, they say they are much stronger than ordinary TNT. The rest of the stupid readers may believe you and will not notice the TNT equivalent.
                    TNT equivalent 1,5.
                    This means that explosives are only 50% more powerful than TNT. You will say that this is a lot one and a half times? But the fact is that a banal increase in the weight of an explosive charge, for example, by 2-3 times (by 100-200%), can achieve almost the same destructive effect. You probably do not know that the main weight of the warhead is its steel shell - for example, for a high-explosive bomb, the weight of the steel body is 60%, and the weight is 40%. That's about the same for the rocket. That is, you all see the weight of the warhead of the Soviet-Russian missile of 500 kg, then you should understand that of these five hundred kilograms, about 300 kg is a steel shell and only 200 kg is the explosive charge itself.
                    And the point is that a high-explosive explosion generally pierces thick armor!
                    I could give examples of tests, but here is a case when 2 Japanese shells of 305 mm caliber hit the battleship Eagle in the armor below the waterline at once and the Eagle trembled strongly and tilted from their explosion - but the armor did not penetrate!
                    But you will immediately say that there are cumulative warheads that will pierce the armor of an battleship even with a thickness of 200-400 mm. Yes, of course they will. Moreover, this penetration does not require a warhead weight of 500 kg at all - a conventional anti-tank cumulative projectile with an explosive weight of a couple of kilograms is quite enough. But only it would be good for all of you to understand that the diameter of the hole from the cumulative projectile is absolutely tiny - about a few millimeters! That is, cumulative ammunition is ineffective against ships!
                    1. Intruder
                      Intruder 29 March 2021 11: 03
                      +4
                      You probably don’t know that the main weight of the warhead is its steel shell - for example, for a high-explosive bomb, the weight of the steel body is 60%, and the weight is 40%
                      You are confusing, different types: a high-explosive fragmentation bomb, with a cruise missile PFBCH, of course a cart and a Tesla, each have 4 wheels - but still different designs !? wink
                      they say they are much stronger than conventional TNT
                      and what is 1,5 times less than in the classic TNT !? That is, 1,5 apples are not horseradish, not more than one apple ??? Oh, they made me laugh ... well, yes, TGA - by the way, they did not create it for fireworks, more precisely for "fireworks", but others ... Tell me, more about the blasting mixtures, just specially brought these types above! !!
                      1. geniy
                        geniy 29 March 2021 12: 06
                        -4
                        and what is 1,5 times less than in the classic TNT !? That is, 1,5 apples are not horseradish, not more than one apple ???

                        You, like most people, do not understand when to apply absolute values ​​of quantities, and when relative ones. Of course you are right that 1 gram of TGA is 1,5 times stronger than 1 gram of TNT, and 1 kg of Tha is stronger than 1 kg of TNT, and 1 ton of TGA is stronger than one ton of TNT. But the target ship is affected not by a relative, but by an absolute amount of explosive! And it is very important how many centuries exploded in order to assess the damage. But the most important thing is a fundamentally important question: where exactly did it explode OUTSIDE of the armor plating - or INSIDE the ship's hull? But in order to say that the missile pierces the armor, and not just exploded OUTSIDE, actual proof of penetration is required.
                      2. Intruder
                        Intruder 29 March 2021 12: 36
                        +2
                        But in order to say that the missile pierces the armor, and not just exploded OUTSIDE, actual proof of penetration is required.
                        Monsieur, does it tell you anything at all, type: penetrating-high-explosive warhead !? Do not count it, only for rudeness ... And why and for what, it is indicated precisely the penetrating part of it, in contrast to other types: high-explosive, fragmentation and high-explosive fragmentation, or thermobaric and others ... ???
                  2. Intruder
                    Intruder 29 March 2021 11: 09
                    0
                    And the point is that a high-explosive explosion generally pierces thick armor!
                    And the explosion does not penetrate anything, it can only act with energy (well ... like, destroy solid bodies), but who, like: high-explosive or high-explosive, is another conversation in the field of explosion physics ...
                    1. geniy
                      geniy 29 March 2021 12: 09
                      -3
                      And the explosion does not penetrate anything, it can only act with energy (well ... like, destroy solids)

                      This is what I am writing to all of you - of course you use the ephemism "an explosion DOES NOT DESTROY armor, but only affects In principle, it is not capable of exploding INSIDE the hull of an armored ship.
                    2. Intruder
                      Intruder 29 March 2021 12: 43
                      0
                      So the point is that a high-explosive explosion (if it is not cumulative) does not destroy thick armor with any energy, which means, in principle, is not capable of exploding INSIDE the hull of an armored ship.
                      Phew ..., now we have a cumulative explosion (interestingly, have the cumulative HF been delivered already ??? request ) .... Explosion and does not explode laughing surprisingly ..., there is also, like this and for what, there is also an explosive in the warhead, with "mechanisms" for detonation, perhaps "other things" !? winked
                    3. geniy
                      geniy 29 March 2021 13: 25
                      -1
                      Uh ... now we have a cumulative explosion

                      No no. This is your confusion. Maybe you don't know yet that a high-explosive explosion does not penetrate armor? That is, the British had shells "sticking to the armor" that allegedly chipped off fragments from the back of the armor. BUT they did not find use. Therefore, once again I remind you of the axiom that high-explosive explosion does not penetrate armor!
                      And if you want to use a cumulative explosion specifically for piercing ship armor, then get only a tiny hole in it and an explosion OUTSIDE the armor. So you already decide.
                    4. Intruder
                      Intruder 29 March 2021 15: 08
                      0
                      Maybe you don't know yet that a high-explosive explosion does not penetrate armor?
                      well, if on the fingers, then:
                      By its design, an armor-piercing high-explosive projectile is generally similar to a conventional high-explosive, however, unlike the latter, it has a body with relatively thin walls, designed for plastic deformation when it encounters an obstacle, and always only a bottom fuse. The charge of an armor-piercing high-explosive projectile consists of a plastic explosive and, when the projectile meets an obstacle, "spreads" over the surface of the latter. Contrary to popular myth, an increase in the angle of armor negatively affects the penetration and armor action of HE shells, which can be seen, for example, in the documents on testing the British 120mm L11 gun.
                      After the "spreading" of the charge, it is undermined by a slow-action bottom fuse, creating a pressure of explosion products of up to several tens of tons per square centimeter of armor, falling to atmospheric pressure within 1-2 microseconds. As a result, a compression wave is formed in the armor with a flat front and a propagation velocity of about 5000 m / s, which, when it meets the rear surface of the armor, is reflected and returned as an extension wave. As a result of wave interference, the rear surface of the armor is destroyed and spalls are formed that can hit internal equipment or crew members. In some cases, through penetration of the armor can also occur in the form of a puncture, a break or a knocked-out plug, but in most cases it is absent. In addition to this direct action, the explosion of an armor-piercing high-explosive projectile creates a shock impulse acting on the armor and capable of disabling or disrupting the internal equipment, or injuring the crew members.
                    5. geniy
                      geniy 29 March 2021 16: 01
                      -2
                      Do you know how to read Intruder (Denis Alekseev) Today, 15:08, at least what you yourself quote from the link? Here you brought a piece of text about an English plastic high-explosive charge, which the British invented back in 1950, and since then nothing has been heard about it! Neither Russians, nor Americans, Germans and French do not use such plastic shells!
                      В some cases through penetration of armor can also occur in the form of a puncture, break or knocked out plug, however, in most cases it is absent. the rear surface of the armor is destroyed and spalls are formed that can hit the internal equipment or crew members.

                      That is, if you knew how to read, you would understand that the explosion of such a projectile occurs OUTSIDE of the armor. This means that there is absolutely NO blast wave from such a projectile inside the object. Crew members are allegedly affected only by shrapnel from the armor itself. BUT now, bulletproof vests are widely used that protect well from shrapnel, and it is enough for the ship's crew to put on bulletproof vests as they will have nothing. And most importantly from the explosion of such a projectile in most cases nThat is, through holes are formed - but only the rear spalling of pieces of armor.
                  3. Intruder
                    Intruder 29 March 2021 15: 13
                    +1
                    And if you want to use a cumulative explosion specifically to pierce the ship's armor, you will only get a tiny hole in it and an explosion OUTSIDE the armor.
                    And the designers and engineers did not even know that idiocy had been designed for so many years laughing wink :
                  4. geniy
                    geniy 29 March 2021 16: 13
                    -1
                    Not only do you not know how to read, but your eyesight is very poor. Because if you walked well, you would understand that the picture you presented does not depict an anti-ship missile at all, but an anti-submarine torpedo. And the essence of its application is that all Soviet submarines are DOUBLE-HULL - that is, a solid hull is completely covered by a LIGHTWEIGHT hull. And now the enemy torpedo with its explosion will make a hole only in the LIGHT hull, but in the thick, strong hull, no holes will form and the boat will float calmly because in the submerged position all the tanks of the light hull are filled with water anyway. And that's why I came up with torpedoes with cumulative warheads - because their shock core will reach a solid hull with a skin thickness of 40 mm and will probably pierce it with a hole diameter of about 30 mm. And since inside the strong hull of the submarine is full of all sorts of things, it may turn out that there will be no access to this hole and the submariners will not be able to repair it, so the entire compartment will be filled with water under very high pressure and the submarine will most likely sink.
                    But unlike submarines, if anti-ship missiles with cumulative warheads are fired at a surface ship, then sailors on surface ships can easily plug such a hole with a diameter of 30 mm with an ordinary wooden plug, even from the inside or from the outside. Therefore, if you do not distinguish torpedoes from anti-ship missiles, and submarines from surface ships, then this is an argument for you - that supposedly in a sea battle it is possible to defeat cumulative warheads.
                  5. Intruder
                    Intruder 29 March 2021 19: 53
                    +2
                    Because if you walked well, you would understand that the picture you presented does not depict an anti-ship missile at all, but an anti-submarine torpedo.
                    What, where did I write about - RCC !?
                    This is the answer to your comment, see above ???
                    And if you want to use a cumulative explosion specifically for piercing ship armor

                    Where did you get these 30 mm. holes! ??? laughing So waste this one number, which leads to a number of thoughts ... wink
                    Therefore, if you do not distinguish torpedoes from anti-ship missiles, and submarines from surface ships, then this is an argument for you - that supposedly in a sea battle it is possible to defeat cumulative warheads.
                    Probably from the same area as your craving for armor-piercing "crowbars", for mail armor, with battleships and battleships in the 21st century !? laughing
                  6. geniy
                    geniy 29 March 2021 21: 08
                    -2
                    anti-ship missile, and anti-submarine torpedo.
                    What, where did I write about - RCC !?

                    And why then did you bring a drawing of a torpedo with a cumulative warhead? After all, we are only talking about piercing armor. And an anti-ship missile, in principle, could meet an armored ship. but the torpedo is not at all intended to penetrate armor. And why then did you bring her drawing?
                    Where did you get these 30 mm. holes !?

                    This is the approximate diameter of the hole from the cumulative ammunition on the tank armor. And this figure is a hundred times closer to the truth than the 1000 mm hole diameter you named from a cumulative ammunition.
                    Everything. I consider further discussion with you unproductive.
                  7. Simargl
                    Simargl 31 March 2021 03: 33
                    0
                    Quote: geniy
                    This is the approximate diameter of the hole from the cumulative ammunition on the tank armor.
                    You seem to be an alternatively gifted person, since you are talking about attacking ships, even, I'm not afraid of this word, battleships, using anti-ship weapons, but you are aware of the parameters of destruction only for tanks.
                    You can at least ask what is in the public domain - much is not secret already.
                  8. geniy
                    geniy 31 March 2021 08: 03
                    0
                    Here you also take an interest. You probably still do not know what the diameter of the hole from the cumulative ammunition is.
                  9. Simargl
                    Simargl 31 March 2021 08: 42
                    0
                    Quote: geniy
                    Here you also take an interest.
                    I was interested. Depends on the caliber. You did not know this, due to the fact that you did not try to understand the topic. You are a militant dilettante.
                  10. geniy
                    geniy 31 March 2021 08: 53
                    0
                    I was interested. Depends on caliber

                    By doing this, you can only fool very stupid people who do not know that a specific question must be answered with a specific one. And of course there is a dependence, but this dependence is linear. That is, if an anti-tank cumulative projectile with a caliber of 120 mm has a cumulative jet diameter of about 30 mm. Then the question is - what is the diameter from the cumulative jet of the warhead of an anti-ship missile with a diameter of 0,5 meters? I ask you specific question!
                  11. Simargl
                    Simargl 31 March 2021 09: 48
                    -1
                    Quote: geniy
                    I am asking you a specific question!
                    I will not answer it: I was not hired to be a teacher. Just a hint: the hole might not be round. But you don't know that.
                    And about 30 mm you are repeating in relation to all ammunition and anti-ship - in particular. Do not make you poke your nose.
                  12. geniy
                    geniy 31 March 2021 11: 06
                    0
                    Everything is clear with you.
                    was not hired to be a teacher.

                    The teacher is still found - but you do not know a single belmes.
                    The hole is not round. It is necessary to freeze such nonsense.
    5. Simargl
      Simargl 31 March 2021 03: 30
      0
      Quote: geniy
      all Soviet submarines are DOUBLE-HULL - that is, a strong hull is completely covered by a LIGHTWEIGHT hull.
      laughing And you, as I understand it, do not know what makes light and what is durable !!! lol
    6. geniy
      geniy 31 March 2021 09: 35
      -1
      And you, as I understand it, do not know what makes light and what is durable !!!
      For laymen and stupid people, I will explain the essence of the matter. I am actually a professional shipbuilder and I am very good at submarines. So: all the space between the strong and light hull is occupied by the so-called main ballast tanks. Which, when submerged, are always filled with sea water. But the paradox is that they not only serve for swimming under water, but at the same time they are also excellent anti-torpedo and mine protection! The fact is that anti-torpedo protection was invented for battleships - simply empty or liquid-filled compartments that would distance the center of a torpedo or mine explosion from a thick anti-torpedo bulkhead. This is important because the pressure in the shock front decreases to the third power of the distance. Therefore, if a torpedo or mine hits the thin outer side, then while its pressure of the shock wave reaches the thick anti-torpedo one, it will very much weaken. And it just so happened that the submarine's light hull and its durable hull play the role of anti-torpedo protection. And if the battleships had a width of this anti-torpedo protection of about 5 m at best, then for submarines pr 949 the width between a strong and light hull was 6 m - more than that of a battleship. This means that it is unlikely that it will be possible to sink them with a conventional torpedo. And American boats often do not have a light hull at all, so they do not have such anti-torpedo protection. And then the adversaries came up with the idea of ​​using a warhead with a cumulative warhead on torpedoes, which, when exploded, creates an impact core that flies tens of meters and is capable of piercing the skin of a solid hull. And although the diameter of such a cumulative hole is very small, but the water pressure at a depth of 500-600 meters is very high - hundreds of times more than that of surface ships. Therefore, one submarine compartment can flood even from a small hole. BUT the bottom line is that such ammunition with a cumulative warhead can only be effective against submarines, and against surface ships they are completely ineffective, because the water pressure of the NK is hundreds of times less! And this means that using an anti-ship missile with a cumulative warhead is complete nonsense! This is the deception of the Intruder who made a comment with a picture of a cumulative torpedo that supposedly torpedoes have a cumulative warhead, which means, in his opinion, anti-ship missiles can also have. Otherwise, why did he put this picture of a torpedo with a cumulative warhead if not to deceive stupid readers?
  • geniy
    geniy 29 March 2021 10: 38
    -3
    These are standard missiles with a PFBCH warhead ...

    And what exactly is this PFBCH? It is clear that this is a Penetrating warhead. But what does it look like - like a shaped-charge warhead with an internal cone made of thin copper or like a thick front armor-piercing one. It is clear that it is absolutely impossible for a water warhead to combine the cumulative principle and ordinary thick steel in the form of a front tip. So - an ordinary armored tip for missiles usually pierces armor of about 30-40 mm, and if the armor is thicker - then it's not a fact - I would like to see or hear evidence of penetrating more or less thick ship armor by anti-ship missiles. But I understand that my hopes are unrealistic - such experiments are most likely classified. Therefore, none of us has iron evidence of whether an anti-ship missile can hit armor with a thickness of more than 30-40 mm, while battleships often had an armor belt of 300-400 m. And there was even a French armored cruiser "Dupuis de Lom" with a displacement of 6 thousand tons fully covered with 120mm thick armor. And whether an anti-ship missile will be able to penetrate such a thickness of armor - I personally doubt it.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 29 March 2021 10: 55
      +1
      rocket to hit armor with a thickness of more than 30-40 mm, and after all, battleships often had an armor belt of 300-400 m.
      And where are the armor belts used on ships now! ??? recourse And even more so in 300-400 mm.!? laughing Then why, use your blunt-nosed "crowbars", so I can't understand these spherical reasoning in the deep vacuum of the Universe laughing !? A penetrating FBCH can create no less problems than your "classic" armor-piercing projectile from the epochs of the past and the century before last ... Moreover, multiple damage from a high-explosive effect inside premises, etc. no less dangerous for onboard equipment and manpower - teams on any ship ... fellow
      1. geniy
        geniy 29 March 2021 12: 38
        -2
        And where are the armor belts used on ships now! ??? recourse And even more so in 300-400 mm.!?
        You are absolutely right in this - because now there are no such ships in the operating fleet and not in museums at all .. and all modern ships are thin-skinned with a skin thickness of 10-20 mm. It is not difficult to pierce them with a rocket.
        Then why, use your blunt-nosed "crowbars", so I can't understand these spherical reasoning in the deep vacuum of the Universe

        And then, with the current level of technology, it is not difficult to build a ship similar to the cruiser Dupuis de laem with an armor thickness of 120 mm over the entire hull area, and with a greater displacement than 6 thousand tons, it can be thicker. And given the progress in metallurgy, the equivalent thickness of the armor can become 200-250mm.
        And here's the big question: will an anti-ship missile be able to penetrate armor of such an equivalent thickness? I doubt it very much. And this means that it is possible, in principle, to create a modern armored ship that cannot be penetrated by anti-ship missiles and aerial bombs. And then there will be no missile explosions INSIDE the ship's hull at all.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 29 March 2021 12: 51
          +2
          And given the progress in metallurgy, the equivalent thickness of the armor can become 200-250mm.
          On land, as it is easy to cope with this thickness, almost any ATGM and (RPG-shki and up to LNG), namely up to 950 mm., Inclusive, .... up to a heap, you can also burn a large-diameter cumulative forming funnel, in caliber Anti-ship missiles and there will obviously be more than 1000 mm., I represent the displacement of your battleship with an armored deck of 1500 mm., Plus the side belt - not less than 2000 mm.!? winked laughing And 4 power units of 1 GW each, with a cooling tower as a flue one ??? wink
          1. geniy
            geniy 29 March 2021 13: 52
            -1
            On land, as it is easily copes with this thickness, almost any ATGM and (RPG-shki up to LNG), namely up to 950 mm., Inclusive

            Yes, just to deceive other gullible readers, you deliberately do not mention that the DIAMETER of a hole from such a punching is negligible - about 20mm!
            And if you think that it is impossible to use such a thick 1000 mm armor on a ship, but much thinner. Then I hasten to disappoint you, the diameter of the hole will not increase at all from this! That is, with an armor thickness of 500 mm, the hole is 20 mm, and with a thickness of 200 mm, a diameter of 20 mm, and with an armor thickness of 100 mm, the cumulative hole diameter is 20 mm, and with an armor thickness of 50 mm, the cumulative hole diameter is also 20 mm!
            And if you think that by using a missile with a warhead weight of 500 kg you will get a cumulative hole with a diameter of 1000 mm, then you are again very mistaken - because in reality the diameter of this hole at best will be only 100 mm
            And for a ship, such a hole is absolutely insignificant - even an open window with a clear diameter of 380 mm.
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 31 March 2021 03: 39
            0
            Quote: geniy
            to deceive other gullible readers, you deliberately do not mention that the DIAMETER of a hole from such a punching is negligible - about 20mm!
            You would read, perhaps, the history of the appearance of the RCC! The first anti-ship missile system broke the cruiser, protected by 160 mm armor, in half!
            One !!!
            One of the first, i.e. the effect is weak.
            And it was just a cumulative high-explosive, and not a special ...
            Stop making people laugh!
    2. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 29 March 2021 14: 46
      +2
      Quote: Intruder
      And where are the armor belts used on ships now! ??? And even more so in 300-400 mm.!? Then why, use your blunt-nosed "crowbars", so I can't understand these spherical reasoning in the deep vacuum of the Universe !? A penetrating FBCH can create no less problems than your "classic" armor-piercing projectile from the epochs of the past and the century before last ... Moreover, multiple damage from a high-explosive effect inside premises, etc. no less dangerous for onboard equipment and manpower - teams on any ship ...

      And this is not the frame that has been drowning for a couple of years for the revival of the armored fleet?
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 29 March 2021 15: 02
        0
        And this is not the frame that has been drowning for a couple of years for the revival of the armored fleet?
        Honestly, no idea! I've been here since the summer of 2019 ...
      2. Torukmakto
        Torukmakto 29 March 2021 16: 01
        +2
        Kaptsov? Yes, it doesn't look like it. He is much more civilized and detailed in his dialogues.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 31 March 2021 03: 40
          +1
          Quote: TorukMakTo
          Kaptsov? Yes, it doesn't look like it.
          Rather bitten by him. There is something in the saliva.
  • Andrew Matseevsky
    Andrew Matseevsky 29 March 2021 01: 49
    0
    Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition? the rocket, in principle, does not penetrate the armor with a blow like a projectile. On a rocket, there are no walls so thick that it does not split when it hits the armor. And the tandem ammunition will penetrate the spaced armor - in fact, this is exactly what it was designed for.
    1. geniy
      geniy 29 March 2021 09: 20
      0
      Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition?

      You are greatly mistaken about the principle of operation of tandem ammunition, thinking that from the explosion of the first charge of explosives, a hole is formed in the armor of such a large diameter that a second charge of explosives supposedly fits into this hole. But in fact, the tandem ammunition was invented so that the first explosion would simply make the overhead explosive plates on the side of the tank explode and thereby expose the armor for the second cumulative explosion. But the diameter of the hole in the light is just tiny - only a few tens of millimeters! So the second explosive charge just won't fit into this hole with a diameter of a pencil!
      Moreover, this armor is for a ship - which does not even have any plates with explosives on its side armor.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 March 2021 12: 05
    +1
    Quote: geniy
    Firstly, the speed of foreign anti-ship missiles is generally less than 300 m / s, and for large-caliber projectiles it is about 600 m / s, and this double speed advantage gives 4 a fourfold decrease in the kinetic energy of armor-piercing ammunition.

    As soon as reservations appear in the projects of the ships, the means of dealing with it will appear in the projects of the anti-ship missiles. From the solutions "in the forehead" - an armor-piercing warhead with a stage of additional acceleration. Or "for old money" - the equivalent of a 12 "armor-piercing projectile, but with a supersonic speed of meeting armor.
    Moreover, the body of an armor-piercing warhead will be lighter than that of a projectile, since the acceleration of the warhead will be smoother, and its body does not need to rely on shock loads, overloads and pressure during firing and acceleration in the barrel bore.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 28 March 2021 22: 13
    +1
    Right now I am working on a fully armored ship, though not with big guns, but still with missiles (and helicopters and short take-off planes). Here I am trying to determine the armor penetration of enemy missiles in order to hold them back with thin armor. So far it is problematic.
    Computer game, or literary fiction !?
    1. geniy
      geniy 29 March 2021 00: 24
      0
      Computer game, or literary fiction !?

      No, I'm trying to come up with ways to increase the combat survivability of ships (and tanks). For example, armor in the form of chain mail covered with fiberglass on the outside for smooth skin, and from the inside - at a distance of about 2 meters, a second layer of smooth sheet armor. This is so that a rocket or a projectile, hitting the outer chain mail, would easily press it 2 meters deep into the width of the ship and by adding the mass of the chain mail and its strength so that the rocket warhead would use up all its kinetic energy, and the second layer of sheet armor would not allow spreading water inside the ship.
      And if you manage to come up with this, then make a small model of such a casing - for example, only 20-30 cm, and shoot at it with a rifle. And if it turns out to increase survivability, then offer it to military organizations.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 29 March 2021 01: 27
        -1
        and shoot her with a rifle.
        do not consider it arrogance, but which one is chosen for this role !?
        outside covered with fiberglass
        maybe then, it is simpler carbon fiber (and in the future it will allow switching to CNTs (spiral structures, in the form of a ribbon), and there are good parameters for rupture and shock loads of different deformations ...) with a matrix based on metal alloys - a composite assembly will be, if already, decided to "catch" the penetrating warhead kinetics !?
        1. geniy
          geniy 29 March 2021 09: 05
          +1
          Yes, I have no question of the type of rifle at all yet! The fact is that before choosing a weapon, you must first come up with the design of this armor, and then the technology for its manufacture - that is, how exactly the workers should wind these thousands of strong rings so that it is cheap and cheerful. Moreover, I wrote about the rings only for seed, because the design of such complex armor can be in dozens of types.
          As well as a variety of materials. You mentioned carbon fiber quite rightly, and I looked at it too, but in fact many other types of materials can be used, such as fiberglass, quartz fiber, high-strength steel wires, and God knows what else. So the question of how to pierce is secondary, first you need to create a structure and how to pierce it - maybe there will be. Moreover, the ability to pierce armor strongly depends on its thickness, and I do not even imagine what it might be.
          And the most important thing is that I came up with this ten years ago at my leisure, and now I severely do not have enough time for very important and financial matters. Now, if an order for the manufacture of such armor came from which side - that would be the case! And I don't have time to run to different authorities and beg everyone to apply Christ for the sake of it.
      2. Maikcg
        Maikcg 29 March 2021 01: 34
        +3
        In response, the rockets will make a slide and hit the deck, a bottle of vodka and a night of meditation for two smart programmers :)
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 29 March 2021 07: 13
          -1
          In response, the rockets will make a slide
          And then, such a classic awaits them, with "welcoming" trails of shells, such as:



          1. Maikcg
            Maikcg 29 March 2021 13: 17
            0
            At close range, the cannon drives will not have time to deploy the installation, only lasers, only hardcore. But we will answer this with a mirror anti-laser stealth coating.
        2. geniy
          geniy 29 March 2021 09: 10
          +1
          You are absolutely right that punching the boards is actually not at all important - but the deck is MORE IMPORTANT! I have long calculated that in the battles of past eras, about 90% of the shells should have hit the decks of ships, but they all ricocheted. Or take the book "On the Eagle in Tsushima" And look at the drawings of the battleship Eagle - and for some unknown reason, only hits on the sides are shown, although in fact Kostenko describes many huge holes in the upper deck - and where are they actually shown?
          So - I personally think that on every warship it is imperative to book the upper deck.
          And yes - the protection of the ship with anti-aircraft artillery is also a good tool - but it's still nice to have reliable constructive protection in the form of high-strength armor. Moreover, over the past hundred years metallurgists have nevertheless invented very strong metals.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus April 4 2021 09: 41
    0
    I completely agree with you. It seems to me that if you get the same Cleveland within the range of your 155mm cannons, then the Ticonderoga simply has nothing to defend with. A couple of hits from the PF with pigs that do not care about ECM and interference and an unarmored boat goes to the bottom. Sheffield sent ONE unexploded Exocet to the bottom, Stark almost fell apart after TWO Exossets, rescued, EMNIP with the entire fleet, and after two hits the ship itself turned into a target where nothing worked. But I'm sure that a 155mm HE shell from Cleveland would have done no less trouble than one exoset. But how many Ticonderoga Harpoons will be able to against Cleveland's armor belt - I don't think. Or even armored decks. The bodies of modern missiles, be it Harpoon, RBS-15 or Ehoset, are lightweight aluminum or plastic, even if the steel is not hardened. And such a warhead will detonate, on the surface of the armor, but how much will a harpoon warhead do against the 80-127mm Cleveland belt? Obviously, less than a 155mm ingot would make an unarmored Ticonderogi hull. The problem is not to make ships with an armored belt and a deck, as during the Second World War, the problem is that if you replace the warhead on the same Harpoon with the Cumulative one, then no armor will help. And it will be necessary to hang active protection systems on ships like on tanks :-). I'm much more interested in the fact that NONE of the anti-ship missiles hit the ship on which the electronic warfare / MZA means were working. Neither Exocets, nor Harpoons, nor Ottomata, nor RBS15.
    I, a purely terrestrial person, just have a question, if anti-ship missiles do not hit the enemy protected by electronic warfare and all sorts of Phalanxes, what for are they needed? Isn't it easier to stir up a similar Cleveland, but hang it with electronic warfare, missile defense and air defense? In pure theory, a ship whose offensive armament is artillery, wanted to spit on electronic warfare and Phalanxes on enemy ships.
  • Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 28 March 2021 06: 19
    +5
    I expected that there would be a story about the main caliber of the Yamato. I look forward to continuing.
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 28 March 2021 06: 33
    +4
    * Admiral Benbow ", and where:" Blind Pew "and John Silver?
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 28 March 2021 06: 47
      +4
      and where: "Blind Pew" and John Silver?
      In the second part of the article, to be continued ... wink
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 28 March 2021 08: 52
        +1
        Then I'll wait
      2. vladcub
        vladcub 28 March 2021 09: 21
        +7
        Looking for Bili Bons
    2. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 19: 50
      0
      Quote: Astra wild2
      John Silver

      Fifteen people for a dead man's bottle, oh-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum ...
    3. Maikcg
      Maikcg 29 March 2021 01: 36
      0
      Copywriters will rip off millions for copyright rights.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 28 March 2021 06: 46
    +1
    Almost each of the guns was manufactured according to separate drawings, for this reason, many elements of the guns were not unified. All of them had one or another design difference from each other, while the main characteristics of the guns were almost the same.
    an amusing wonder, the elements are not unified, and the drawings are separate for each design of the gun, it is good that the calibers at least coincided and up to a heap of design differences !? laughing wink Although previously similar systems have already been created, only in a different caliber - 432 mm., But they could not repeat them according to the old drawings and in a smaller caliber ... funny and bold ... although the author is not to blame !!!
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 28 March 2021 08: 48
      +1
      Yes, that's understandable. Such a barrel is a piece goods. And the pinnacle of technology at the time. Constantly making improvements to correct design flaws, improve manufacturability.
    2. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 28 March 2021 08: 51
      +2
      "The author is not to blame," and who is to blame: the engineer or the manufacturers?
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 28 March 2021 10: 41
        +1
        and who is to blame: the engineer or the manufacturers?
        This is a great mystery, like many other zaboristy "quirks" in history, madam !!! winked
    3. Undecim
      Undecim 28 March 2021 10: 39
      +9
      funny and funky
      This is the cost of rewriting on an unfamiliar topic. This weapon was really problematic. When testing the first copy, it turned out that the strength of the structure was insufficient, so it was rejected and a new, reinforced one was assembled, which was taken as a standard. A third gun was made according to his model, but with an increased cutting depth. During the shooting, cracks in the fastening hoops and increased heat were found. It was returned to the factory and the barrel design was changed - the number and size of the fastening rings.
      The fourth instance had some difference in the design of the muzzle entrance. The problems are the same. The cannon was returned to the factory and reinforced, but the design of the hoops was different from the third. And so on until number 12.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 28 March 2021 22: 15
        -1
        The cannon was returned to the factory and reinforced, but the design of the hoops was different from the third. And so on until number 12.
        12 options, design mistakes ... something too much !? wink
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 28 March 2021 23: 01
          0
          12 options, design flaws ... a bit too much
          https://web.archive.org/web/20110302105923/http://abakus.narod.ru/bg/biggun.htm
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 29 March 2021 13: 33
            +1
            Interesting folk live on the site. In response to the provided source of information, it puts a minus.
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 28 March 2021 08: 33
    +6
    In turn, enemy ships with rapid-fire artillery would quickly turn the Italian battleship into a colander.

    Rapid-fire naval artillery did not exist when the Caio Duilio was designed.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 38
      +3
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      Rapid-fire naval artillery did not exist when the Caio Duilio was designed.

      By the way, it is not clear why then not to mention Duillo's sister ship - Enrico Dandolo. In order not to create the impression of "uniqueness and uniqueness" Duillo)). Dandolo carried the same 2 x 450mm monsters. However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 20: 45
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

        Deck is the Titanic. Petka looks through binoculars: "Vasil Ivanovich, what is this? Binoculars, Petka, binoculars ... Vasil Ivanovich, what is this ice floe? Petka, look, T-ta-nik ...
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 29 March 2021 09: 37
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        However, after the reconstruction in 1895-98, these mastodons were replaced by 250mm.

        EMNIP is still 254mm the same as the bow on the Kasuga.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 March 2021 09: 41
          +1
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          EMNIP is still 254mm the same as the bow on the Kasuga.

          well, yes, 10 '')
  • Undecim
    Undecim 28 March 2021 10: 08
    +7
    In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns.
    The HMS Temeraire armament is a full inch "step back."
    Launched in 1869, HMS Captain carried RML 12-inch 25-ton guns.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 11: 31
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      In this regard, the British battleship of 1876 Temeraire can be distinguished. The ship was equipped with four rifled muzzle-loading 25-ton RML 11 inch 25 ton Mark II guns.

      In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to cite "Inflexible" of the same 1876 as an aperitif. with its RML 16-inch 80 ton. Still 406mm)
      And, at least, Inflexible fired 88 shells from its monstrous main battery during the siege of Alexandria.
      1. Alf
        Alf 28 March 2021 20: 23
        +1
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Inflexible fired 88 rounds from its monstrous main battery during the siege of Alexandria.

        Have you ever come to Alexandria from such and such stubs?
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 20: 55
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          Have you ever come to Alexandria from such and such stubs?

          In vain you so much) Quite a hit for yourself, like Tamerer.
          1. Richard
            Richard 28 March 2021 21: 23
            +3
            In 1917, the English battle cruiser Furies was commissioned.
            Light armor, high speed, and at the same time two truly monstrous Mk I 457 mm guns located in the bow and stern of the ship. Clearly answer the question "Why?" after Fischer's departure, none of the high-ranking officials could retire, and therefore the battle cruiser was rebuilt into an aircraft carrier.
            a photo Turret "Furies" with a 457-mm gun

            a photo Furies during conversion into an aircraft carrier
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 27
              +1
              Quote: Richard
              In 1917, the English battle cruiser Furies was commissioned.

              It seems that it is in its cruising incarnation and has not been 'exploited', is it?
              1. Richard
                Richard 28 March 2021 21: 29
                +2
                To the credit of the British, the alteration was begun even before the completion of the ship's construction. And in the role of the aircraft carrier "Furies" acted quite successfully - having passed both the interwar period and the Second World War "from bell to bell."
            2. Richard
              Richard 28 March 2021 21: 27
              +4
              In 1940, the Japanese wiped their noses around the world. Meet: truly the largest and most advanced of the serially built naval guns.

              Three turrets with three 460 mm guns each. The weight of the gun with the bolt is 165 tons, the rate of fire is up to two rounds per minute. The rotating part of each of the three gun turrets weighed 2510 tons. The weight of one projectile is up to 1460 kilograms. However, there was a problem with them: the Japanese sailors received only armor-piercing and anti-aircraft (yes, they also fired at planes FROM THIS) shells, they simply did not have time to develop a high-explosive shell. The maximum firing range of an armor-piercing projectile was more than 42000 meters.

              However, the "Yamato" wonder guns did not help. Ten hits from aerial bombs and thirteen torpedoes will bring whoever you want to the grave.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 36
                +3
                Quote: Richard
                However, the "Yamato" wonder guns did not help. Ten hits from aerial bombs and thirteen torpedoes will bring whoever you want to the grave.

                But he is handsome, you bastard, like a god. I feel absolutely boyish delight looking at this masterpiece.
            3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 21: 29
              +1
              I would remember Victoria. The ramming cruiser was rammed and, under the weight of the main battery, sank vertically to the bottom, emnip)
          2. Alf
            Alf 28 March 2021 21: 39
            0
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            In vain you really)

            Well, in vain you really so, let me mock something. Did you end up in Alexandria in general or exactly where you were aiming? laughing
        2. Intruder
          Intruder 28 March 2021 22: 17
          +1
          Alexandria, then at least once got from such and such stubs
          It's big, it's hard not to hit ... laughing
  • bk0010
    bk0010 28 March 2021 10: 21
    +2
    Were these guns smoothbore or rifled? Judging by the fact that the shells were fired - rifled, but then what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 March 2021 13: 32
      +2
      Quote: bk0010
      Were these guns smoothbore or rifled? Judging by the fact that the shells were fired - rifled, but then what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

      Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 March 2021 13: 35
        +3

        Charging scheme for a muzzle-loading smooth-bore naval gun.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 28 March 2021 14: 06
          +9
          Vlad, hello. hi
          Looking at these monsters for some reason I remembered the old film "The Mystery of Back Cup Island".


        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 16: 32
          +1
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Charging scheme for a muzzle-loading smooth-bore naval gun.

          With what fright 'smooth-bore'? The materiel would be studied before writing the game
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 13
        +4
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.

        Don't write nonsense: the RML 17.72 inch gun is threaded implement - RML - rifled muzzle loader - rifled muzzle-loader... Antipode - RBL - rifled breech loader - rifled breech-loading.
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 28 March 2021 17: 56
        +5
        Dulio and Bingbow were armed with muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns.
        Hello Vladislav. The ships you indicated were armed rifled guns.
        "Cayo Duilio" was armed with a muzzle-loading British RML 17.72 inch gun with Palliser shells.

        It's a cannon.

        And this is how the shell looked.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 28 March 2021 18: 06
          +3
          HMS Benbow was armed with breech-loading rifled BL 16.25-inch Mk I naval gun.

          Anyone who put a minus to a friend with the nickname "Paragraph Epitafievich Y", it is advisable to apologize.
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 19: 45
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          And this is how the shell looked.

          It seems that the Woolwich system differed from the Armstrong system in that the shell did not have these zinc pimples, and the copper pan played the role of a belt and a gas check at the same time.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 28 March 2021 21: 19
            +1
            Yes, you're right, the 100-ton gun used automatic gas-checks projectiles.
      4. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 29 March 2021 14: 27
        +2
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Dulio and Bingbow armed with muzzle-loading smoothbore guns.

        Is it? In my opinion, it is quite sliced
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-ton_gun
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 14: 51
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      but what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

      Well? What's confusing?
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 28 March 2021 17: 39
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Quote: bk0010
        but what about the fact that one of the guns was muzzle-loading?

        Well? What's confusing?

        And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 18: 09
          +2
          Quote: Doliva63
          And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. ...

          They will play. Armstrong's guns had two types of rifling - charging and combat.
          Quote: Doliva63
          In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

          No.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 28 March 2021 21: 01
            +2
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Quote: Doliva63
            And the fact that if the projectile can be shoved into the barrel along the grooves, these grooves will not play a special role when fired. ...

            They will play. Armstrong's guns had two types of rifling - charging and combat.
            Quote: Doliva63
            In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

            No.

            I can't imagine. Two types of rifling?
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 29 March 2021 14: 29
              +2
              Quote: Doliva63
              I can't imagine. Two types of rifling?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-checks_in_British_RML_heavy_guns#Automatic_Gas-Checks
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 18: 17
          +1
          Quote: Doliva63
          In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

          Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 28 March 2021 21: 04
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Quote: Doliva63
            In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

            Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

            It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 21: 08
              +3
              Quote: Doliva63
              Quote: mordvin xnumx
              Quote: Doliva63
              In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

              Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

              It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.

              I'm on ZiLu. The box of matches was closed with a press hammer.
              1. Doliva63
                Doliva63 29 March 2021 15: 56
                0
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Quote: Doliva63
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Quote: Doliva63
                In fact, a smoothbore gun, albeit with grooves.

                Duc inserted a twisted rod, and hammered it.

                It’s hard for me, I grew up at MZ / AZ.

                I'm on ZiLu. The box of matches was closed with a press hammer.

                Ha! I saw how on the Mi-6 the boxes of matches were closed with a hanging wheel!
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 29 March 2021 16: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  the box of matches was closed!

                  I closed the box of matches. He threshed on a press hammer.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 28 March 2021 19: 50
        +2
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Well? What's confusing?
        Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun? Naturally they scored. So I can hardly imagine a hammer for driving such a 17 "projectile into the barrel.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 March 2021 20: 42
          +2
          Quote: bk0010
          Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun? Naturally they scored.

          Well, I would not start comparing this colossus with some kind of Liege fitting)
          As far as I know, the algorithm was something like this after the shot:
          1.turn the gun towards the charger, lower the barrel to the flushing hatch
          2. rinse the barrel with a jet of water. Let the water drain
          3.Lower the barrel to the charging hatch
          4.Clean the barrel with a broomstick
          5. submit a cart with a charge. Send a charge to the barrel.
          6. Align zinc beads on the projectile with the inlet grooves of the groove, feed and send the projectile.


          Quote: bk0010
          So I can hardly imagine a hammer for driving such a 17 "projectile into the barrel.

          Hydraulics "hammered" the projectile)
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 21: 16
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          Do you remember how a bullet was inserted into a rifled muzzle-loading gun?

          Eeee, ... I remember ... Don't be jealous of my lady friends ...
        3. Intruder
          Intruder 28 March 2021 22: 21
          0
          I can hardly imagine a hammer for driving such a 17 "projectile into the barrel.
          a steam hammer, with the appropriate mass and force, is not ...!? laughing wink
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 28 March 2021 19: 56
    +2
    Somewhere I read z caliber (maximum) achieved in 480 mm.
    It's good that they calmed down on this.
    Although, the consumption of ammunition when firing at sea ..
    And the number of hits ...
    The crew is somewhat encouraging. And it instills some hope for existence in the future.
    I never wanted to serve in the navy.
    Although the shape is beautiful! hi
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 28 March 2021 20: 03
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      Somewhere I read z caliber (maximum) achieved in 480 mm.

      The largest cannon was in the possession of the pirate. Treasure from the island. He dragged her on his hump.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 28 March 2021 20: 33
        +2
        It ended badly for him. As far as I remember from an animated film.
        If we discard the cinematography ...
        In any case, such events lead to severe pain in the spine.
        What I personally encountered. And it cannot be cured.
        From the word at all.
        For me the money I earn.
    2. Ilya Shikhailo
      Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 15: 48
      0
      There is information that the Germans made a 530-mm drin during the war for a certain super-battleship, moreover, it was not the H-44, because there was "only" 508 mm.
      It is banal that no one had any money. And, of course, there are special needs too, because it makes sense to create megalinkors only if all the other main participants also have them. Before WWII, everyone took part in the battleship race, after its end the very fat shipbuilding of Germany and Russia, as well as Austria-Hungary, dropped out of the participants. Plus the Washington Treaty. But it was the 1910s - 1920s that were the golden time for battleships. Imagine a situation that PMA has not started. Germany and Austria-Hungary go from 380 to 420 mm, Russia goes from 356 at once to 406 mm (and to the most evil in caliber), and then to 457 mm. What should the British do with the Amers? That's right, build up calibers. There will be 508 and 530 mm, and probably more. In fact, only the absence of the main rivals of the fleets of England, the USA and France - the fleets of Germany and (in the future) Russia - made it possible to stay in calibers of 406-480 mm. Moreover, the amers and brites had 406 mm serial, and 457 mm experienced, the Japanese 460 mm serial and 480 mm experienced. And so, a lot of fierce creep was designed in Interbellum. In Japan - 3х4х510, in the USSR - 3х3х500, 2х3х530, 4х4х457, in the USA - 4х2х508, 4х2х640, etc. Yes, the Americans reached 640 mm on paper. It's a pity that we never saw these monsters of 100-200K tons. It would be cool))) if not for WWI, we would now have Nikolaev battleships in 12x406 or 12x457 as museums)))
  • Michael
    Michael 28 March 2021 21: 32
    +1
    1850-1950 is the century of the vulgarization of the impossible! Humanity will never repeat this again.
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 29 March 2021 02: 35
    0
    -This, he says, is not a gun, but a dinosaur
    -No, this is a gun from which you can lay a dinosaur
    -No, this is the gun that dinosaurs used to fight each other
    (C)
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 26
    0
    I will advertise the creativity of a good person.

    And he has a lot of all sorts of goodies
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 28
    0

    This is from the same channel
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 05: 36
    0
    Since we're talking about big guns, I'll give you a link to this video. Not that time, of course, later. But informative. And the main thing is that the video is not lost.

    Then there will be an article about English cannons, I'll put the link again :-)
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 29 March 2021 11: 03
    +1
    And this video is closer to the topic:
  • Torukmakto
    Torukmakto 29 March 2021 16: 03
    +1
    Quote: Andrew Matseevsky
    Ha ha ha. Have you heard of tandem ammunition? a rocket, in principle, does not penetrate armor with a blow like a projectile. There are no such thick walls on a rocket so that it does not split when it hits the armor.... And the tandem ammunition will penetrate the spaced armor - in fact, this is exactly what it was designed for.

    To be fair, there was an armored warhead on Granites. The question is really about the effectiveness of the armor, yes. But it was calculated, emnip, precisely for deep penetration inside large targets like aircraft carriers.
    1. Ilya Shikhailo
      Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 16: 14
      0
      Modern rockets have up to 3000 m / s, that's a hell of a lot. In theory, if you make a BPS, it will pierce much more than conventional armor piercing. By the way, it seems, there are ATGMs with BPS instead of KS.
  • certero
    certero 30 March 2021 07: 02
    0
    Quote: mmaxx
    The triumph of human strength

    Something tells me that you did not like you there at all.
    The era of the triumph of reason over the forces of nature is right now.
  • Ilya Shikhailo
    Ilya Shikhailo April 3 2021 15: 27
    0
    Where's our 406/20 made at NEO in 1883? Projectile 697 kg at 427 m / s or 631,5 kg at 449 m / s. She's still a beast. Yes, we then also participated in the "caliber race", Admiral Popov in 1877 proposed building battleships with 6x406 or 4x508-mm cannons, with a belt up to 914 mm, but, fortunately, they did not drill much into this topic. Already in 1880, our MGSh began to consider the idea of ​​a single-caliber dreadnought with 305-mm guns, monsters in 406 and even more so 508 mm were much inferior to them in rate of fire.