Military Review

Combat ships. Cruisers. Pioneers of heaven, light and strange

70
In one of the previous articles on the maritime theme, it so happened that a very remarkable ship became a participant in the narrative.


Naval battles. Correct fight in reverse
In this battle, the Germans hit the British very hard, sinking the cruiser and the destroyer. Yes, a properly timed torpedo attack is serious. And the cruiser, which should, in theory, disperse the German ships in one form, sank to the bottom. Let's face it, without doing anything like that.

Could it?

Here it is interesting, simply because the boat was very extraordinary. But - in order, as usual.

In the concept of applying the Royal fleet in connection with the emergence aviation (and the British were among the first to realize that the future of the aircraft is at sea) there was an understanding that the ships had a worthy enemy - a naval bomber and a torpedo bomber.

How it happened that in the rather inert Admiralty the lords reacted quickly is not clear today. But it's a fact: in the mid-thirties, it was decided to build a series of cruisers, the main task of which would be to protect and defend larger ships in the squadron from enemy aircraft.

So there was an understanding of what a ship should be: a light cruiser armed with rapid-fire universal guns.

The project was really quite original. The ship was assembled according to the principle "I blinded it from what was." Moreover, there was something to sculpt from.

Indeed, building such a ship from scratch would be somewhat time consuming and expensive. Therefore, they took a very decent cruiser of the Aretuza class and altered it somewhat.


In fact, the work has been impressive.

Since the new cruiser was not originally intended for independent actions on communications, it was a squadron ship, everything related to autonomy was removed from it. The fuel supply was significantly reduced, the hangar with the seaplane and the catapult, the crane for lifting the seaplane, and the tanks for aviation fuel were removed.

But the freed up weight was aimed at installing five turrets with two universal guns with a caliber of 152 mm each instead of three towers with 133-mm guns like those of Aretuza. And, since it was an air defense cruiser, the anti-aircraft armament was originally supposed to be very emotional for the 30s: two quad pom-pom installations with a caliber of 40 mm and four single-barreled Oerlikons 20 mm.

Few? I think that in those years in the British fleet there were hardly ships that were more sophisticated in terms of air defense. We can say that "Dido" became a breakthrough in shipbuilding. American "Atlantes", which we have already talked about in due time, were built with an eye on "Dido".

Not everything worked out with the cruisers in terms of equipment, because the war began and the UK industry was unable to cope with the supply of the required number of guns. 133-mm guns were also installed on the King George V-class battleships, so problems began with them.

Therefore, quite naturally, the British began to dodge, and 4 of the planned 11 cruisers received four towers instead of five, and two cruisers, Scylla and Charybdis, were armed with generally outdated 114-mm universal guns.

Combat ships. Cruisers. Pioneers of heaven, light and strange

They built ships very quickly, at several shipyards at once, so all cruisers got up very quickly. The ships were laid down in 1937-38, and already in 1940 the ships began to be put into operation.

What were these ships?

Reservation. Reservations, as was customary among the British, were very modest. The armor belt had a place to be. 76 mm thick, rather small in area, covering mainly the artillery cellars and the engine room with 25 mm thick traverses.

The armored deck is standard for light cruisers, 25 mm thick, with a thickening up to 51 mm above the ammunition cellars.

The turrets were armored with 13 mm anti-fragmentation armor.

In general, it is not worth talking about booking as such, but for a ship that was intended for a third role in a squadron battle, it is more than enough.

Power plant and driving performance

The main power plant consisted of four TZA from Parsons and four three-collector steam boilers of the Admiralty type. The boilers are located in pairs in two boiler rooms, in the bow boiler room the boilers were located side-by-side, in the aft tandem, TZA - in two engine rooms.

The power plants produced a total power of 62 hp, which, according to the project, was supposed to provide maximum speed with a standard load of 000 knots and 32 knots at full load.

The cruising range was 1500 nautical miles at 30 knots, 2440 nautical miles at 25 knots, 3480 nautical miles at 20 knots and 4400 miles at an economical speed of 12 knots.


The crew of the Dido-class cruisers was about 500 people. It was noted that habitability was sacrificed to the combat characteristics of the ships, which were famous for their large overcrowding, small living space and poor ventilation of living quarters.

weaponry


The main caliber of the cruisers was supposed to consist of 5,25 "(133 mm) universal caliber guns, identical to those installed on the King George V battleship.


This was supposed to reduce the problems with the supply of ammunition, in fact, everything turned out to be quite difficult.

However, on the cruisers, the Mk.I "battleship" turret mounts were replaced by the Mk.II, which were simpler and lighter. Another difference between the towers was that there were no turret reloading compartments for ammunition. On the one hand, this reduced the safety in battle, on the other, it allowed to increase the ammunition.

The 133-mm gun provided a 36,3-kg projectile with a firing range of up to 22 m and an altitude reach of 000 m. The rate of fire was 14-900 rounds per minute.

In general, the weapon, about which I would like to say a few words, was quite good. And for light surface ships from the destroyer and below, it was simply gorgeous. But having forgiven the planes, let us doubt it.

Yes, the elevation angle of 70 degrees was fine and allowed, if not everything, then almost everything. But the trouble with this gun was that there was only one type of fuse for the projectiles - mechanical, with manual presetting of the distance. That is, in fact, the distance setter was always one shot late.

Considering that, as practice has shown, the guns managed to fire TWO shots against low-flying torpedo bombers and mastheads, at best, the effectiveness was low. And the British had a radar fuse only towards the end of the war.

By the way, the "Prince of Wales" was also armed with 133-mm universal guns. And how did it help him against the Japanese torpedo bombers?

In addition, there was another problem: the low rate of horizontal guidance, only 10-11 degrees per second. This was also an unpleasant moment, although by the end of the war the British engineers were able to solve it, and the battleship Vanguard had already received modernized towers, which had a rotation speed of 20 degrees per second.

By the end of the war, a modification of guns with a higher rate of fire appeared, an automatic machine appeared for setting the fuse delay. At the end of the war, part of the ammunition was made up of shells with a radio fuse.

Ten guns in five towers, universal mountings, which made it possible to fire at both surface and air targets - this is quite strong.


Three towers were in the bow, two in the aft. This is according to the project. But problems with the number of free 133-mm guns resulted in the fact that a number of ships (Dido, Bonaventure and Phoebus) entered service with four turrets, and two more cruisers (Scylla and Charybdis) were equipped with 114-mm universal guns of the previous generation.

Anti-aircraft weapons


History cruisers like "Dido" - the history of rearmament. Initially, the ships were armed in different ways.

The first cruisers in the series received a 102-mm anti-aircraft gun. One thing. Since it did not carry any special value at all, already in 1941 all the cruisers lost it. The exception was "Charybdis", from which the gun was removed in 1943.


40-mm quad-pom-pom anti-aircraft guns.


A couple of these uncomfortable monsters were carried by all the ships, and some of them were still single-barreled. In 1942, on the Cleopatra, and in 1943 on the Charybdis, the single-barreled 40-mm "pom-poms" were replaced by 5 and 11 single-barreled 20-mm "erlikons".


Over the course of the war, the number of Erlikons increased steadily.

In 1943, there were 3 quad pom-poms on Phoebe, and in 1944, two quad poms on Cleopatra were replaced by 3 quad Bofors 40-mm / 56.


In 1944 and 1945 single-barreled "bofors" appeared on "Sirius" and "Argonaut", 4 and 7, respectively.

12,7-mm quadruple installations "Browning" in 1941 were removed from "Dido", "Phoebe", "Evriala", "Hermione".

In 1941, the fifth standard 133-mm Q turret was installed on the Dido, and on the Evrial, Argonaut, and Cleopatra this turret, on the contrary, was removed and the Erlikon was added instead.

The re-equipment of the ships went on all the time. The surviving cruisers met the end of the wars in the following configurations:

Phoebus: 3 x 4 40mm Bofors and 16 20mm Erlikons.
Dido: 2 x 4 40mm pom-poms and 10 20mm erlikons.
Euryal: 3 x 4 40mm Pom-Poms and 17 20mm Erlikons.
Sirius: 2 x 4 40-mm pom-poms, 4 x 1 40-mm Bofors and 7 x 1 20-mm Erlikons.
Cleopatra: 3 x 4 40mm Bofors and 13 20mm Erlikons.
"Argonaut": 3 x 4 40-mm pom-poms, 7 x 1 40-mm beofors and 16 20-mm Erlikons.

In general, we can say that the anti-aircraft armament of ships can be considered close to ideal.

The mine-torpedo armament consisted of two 533-mm three-tube torpedo tubes.

All cruisers were equipped with radar types 279 or 281, 284 when they entered service.

The history of the use of Dido-class cruisers is a history full of battles. The fact that the end of the war was met by half of the list of ships already speaks volumes. You can write a separate story about each of the ships, but now you have to limit yourself to squeezing out their service records.

"Dido"



In 1940 he took part in the search for the "Admiral Scheer" in the Atlantic.
In 1941 he took part in Operation Claymore "for the landing of troops on the Lofoten Islands.
Transferred to the Mediterranean, covered battleships in all operations.
Member of the Cretan operation.
Received severe damage as a result of an aerial bomb hitting tower "B", as a result of which the entire bow group of the main caliber was disabled.
Repaired in the USA, after renovation in 1942, a participant in operations to cover convoys to Malta.
Participated in the Second Battle of Sirte Bay.
Participant in the landing of allied troops in Sicily and in the south of France.
In 1944 he was transferred to the North Atlantic, where he covered convoys.
In 1947 he was transferred to the reserve.
Stripped to metal in 1957.

"Bonaventure"



He received his baptism of fire in November 1940 in a battle with the "Admiral Hipper", who was trying to intercept a British convoy at Cape Finistre.
In December 1940, he discovered and sank the German ship Bremen.
He was transferred to the Mediterranean Sea, where he took part in escorting convoys to Malta. Participated in the battle with Italian destroyers and the sinking of the destroyer "Vega" in January 1941.
March 30, 1941, accompanying another convoy, received two torpedoes from the Italian submarine "Ambra" and sank within a few minutes.

"Naiad"



From the beginning of the war, he was engaged in escorting convoys in the North Atlantic. Then he was transferred to the Mediterranean.
Member of the Cretan and Milo operations. Received damage from enemy aircraft.
Covering convoys in the direction of Malta. During 1941-42 he carried out 11 postings.
Participant in the First Battle of Sirte Gulf.
On March 11, 1942, while returning to base, the cruiser near Sallum was torpedoed by the German submarine U-565. Torpedoes hit the middle of the starboard side of the cruiser, and she sank.

"Phoebus"



In 1940 he took part in a convoy to the Middle East. Participated in the shelling of Tripoli, evacuated troops from Kalamata, covered convoys to Malta.
Member of the Cretan and Syrian operations.
On August 27, 1941, near Bardia, it was damaged by a torpedo during an attack by Italian torpedo bombers, when it was going to support Tobruk. The repairs went on until April 1942.
Returning to service, he took part in Operation Pedestal (Malta).
Then he was sent to the Indian Ocean to intercept the German blockade-breakers.
On October 23, at the transition from Simonstown to Freetown, the cruiser near Pointe Noire, (Belgian Congo), received a torpedo hit from the German submarine U-161. Repaired again in the USA.
He again ended up in the Mediterranean Sea, participated in the Dodecanese operation in Greece.
In 1944 he took part in the landing in Anzio (Italy).
In 1945 he was transferred to the east, where he took part in operations against Japan in Burma and Thailand.
Stripped to metal in 1956.

"Evrial"



Participant of Operation Halberd on escorting Maltese convoys.
He fired at Derna, the coast of Cyrenaica, Barda.
Participant of 1 and 2 battles in Sirte Bay.
He took part in all Maltese operations.
In 1943 he was transferred north and took part in operations in Northern Norway.
In 1944 he was transferred to the Pacific Ocean, took part in operations against Japan, based in Sydney (Australia).
Disassembled for metal in 1956.

"Sirius"



Operations for escorting convoys to Malta.
Indian Ocean Patrol.
Landing in North Africa (Operation Torch).
Member of the Allied landings in Sicily in 1943.
He fired at Solerno and Taranto.
Participant in the destruction of a German convoy on August 6, 1943 in the Aegean Sea.
He covered ships landing troops in Normandy in May 1944.
In July 1944 he took part in the landing of troops in southern France.
After the war, he served for some time in the Mediterranean.
Disassembled for metal in 1956.

"Hermione"



He started the war in the Mediterranean, where he accompanied the Maltese convoys.
Participant in the landing of troops in Madagascar.
On the night of June 16, 1942, south of Crete, it was torpedoed by a German submarine U-205 and sank.

"Cleopatra"



He began hostilities in 1942 with the hit of a 500-kg bomb. After repairs, it shelled Rhodes
Member of the Maltese convoys.
Participant in the Second Battle in Sirte Bay.
He took part in the Syrian campaign.
July 16, 1943 received a torpedo hit from the Italian submarine "Dandolo".
Overhauled in the USA.
After repairs, he was sent to the Pacific Ocean, where he served until 1946.
Disassembled for metal in 1956.

"Argonaut"

He began his service in the Northern Arctic, in the operation on Svalbard.
Member of Operation Torch in North Africa.
December 14, 1942 received two torpedoes from the Italian submarine "Mocenigo". The bow and stern limbs were torn off, steering control was lost, 2 of the five towers were out of order. The cruiser remained afloat and was towed to Algeria.


The renovation lasted until 1944.
Participant in the landing of troops in Normandy, Southern France.
In November 1944 he was transferred to the Pacific Ocean, where he took part in operations against the Japanese army.
Participant in operations at Okinawa and Formosa.
Disassembled for metal in 1956.

"Charybdis"



Member of operations in the Central Atlantic and Mediterranean. Covering the Maltese convoys.
Participant in operations for the landing of troops in North Africa ("Torch" and "Trine").
He covered convoys to the Middle East and Alexandria.
Participant in the landing of troops in Sicily.
Participant in the battle in the English Channel on September 22, 1943. The cruiser received two torpedoes from the T-23 destroyer and sank.

"Scylla"



A participant in the escort of the northern convoys PQ-18 and QP-14, rescued the crews of sunken ships.
Transferred to the Mediterranean, participated in the landing of troops in North Africa.
On January 1, 1943, "Scylla" intercepted and sank with torpedoes the German blockade-breaker "Rakotis", coming from Japan with strategic cargo on board.
Then he continued to serve in the Atlantic, escorted convoys, rescued aircraft crews.
Participant in the landing of troops in Normandy in 1944.
June 23, 1944 was blown up by a mine, received significant damage, restoration was deemed impractical. In 1950 it was dismantled for metal.

In fact, Dido-class cruisers have proven to be very useful and successful ships. Using these ships exactly where they could be of maximum benefit. The fact that the cruisers operated mainly in the Mediterranean Sea, where the actions of the German and Italian aviation caused the greatest damage, suggests that the air defense cruiser was in place.

The long service life of a ship during a war is the best indicator that a ship is operating efficiently. The cruisers Dido were effective. There is nothing to add here, the project was more than successful.
Author:
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 27 March 2021 07: 25
    0
    Thank you, Roman. Probably, I will repeat myself, but as a person NOT a marine, it was interesting to read.
  2. Flooding
    Flooding 27 March 2021 07: 29
    0
    I'm wondering how a ship is classified?
    Why was this ship considered a light cruiser?
    Can't this ship be considered a destroyer in terms of its armament?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 08: 20
      +6
      Quote: Flood
      the ship cannot be considered a destroyer?

      Ship.

      No you can not.
      For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:

      Cruisers
      Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) gauge.


      According to the provisions of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, any high-speed ship with a caliber of guns over 130 OR a displacement over 1880 tons is a cruiser. Dido 5600. Destroyers and frigates in 6K VI still have 40 years to live.
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 27 March 2021 08: 46
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Ship

        Controversial. Military ship, armed ship.
        This is an umbrella term.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        According to the provisions of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, any high-speed ship with a caliber of guns above 130 OR a displacement above 1880 tons is a cruiser.


        1930 London Maritime Treaty.
        The participants were five countries: USA, Great Britain, Italy, France and Japan.
        Under the contract, the size of the destroyers was agreed upon - the standard displacement should be 1500 tons. At the same time, the number of ships exceeding such indicators (up to 1850 tons) should be no more than 16% of the total number of destroyers. The guns could not have a caliber of more than 130 mm.


        Clearly, following the formalities of the contract.
        But in fact, what makes it different from a destroyer?
        Name?
        That is, if Great Britain had not signed the aforementioned treaty, the ship would have been called a destroyer?
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 27 March 2021 09: 59
          +4
          Quote: Flood
          Controversial. Military ship, armed ship.

          Correctly all the same - "ship", although "ship" is permissible in all cases except one ... if you are a first-year sailor. Here they will not forgive the "ship" :))) Although the jargon can be both "steamer" and "box".
          Quote: Flood
          That is, if Great Britain had not signed the aforementioned treaty, the ship would have been called a destroyer?

          Very unlikely, the Britons at that time would have called a destroyer a fool of five and a half thousand tons of displacement.
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 27 March 2021 10: 16
            0
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Correctly all the same - "ship", although "ship" is permissible in all cases except one ... if you are a first-year sailor. Here they will not forgive the "ship" :))) Although the jargon can be both "steamer" and "box".

            Thank you. It is very intelligible and accessible even for land use.
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Very unlikely, the Britons at that time would have called a destroyer a fool of five and a half thousand tons of displacement.

            Yes, but in terms of its intended purpose and composition of weapons, in my amateurish opinion, it is closer to a destroyer.
          2. Flooding
            Flooding 27 March 2021 10: 55
            -2
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Correctly all the same - "ship", although "ship" is permissible in all cases except one ... if you are a first-year sailor. Here they will not forgive the "ship" :))) Although the jargon can be both "steamer" and "box".

            By the way, in English the term "battleship" meant "battleship"
            I don’t know how now.
            And this corresponds to the Russian "ship".
            Since in the sailing fleet a ship was called a sailing ship with straight sailing (the same ship of the line and, probably, a frigate)
            At the same time, "war vessel" corresponds to the Russian "military vessel" and is applicable collectively to all warships.
            1. evmarine
              evmarine 27 March 2021 22: 09
              +2
              "Battleship" literally means "ship for battle, battle". The UK class ended in 1959 with EMNIP with the exception of the 153rd "battle ship" VANGUARD.
              The Brit terms "vessel" and "ship" distinguish: the first is our vessel (merchant MV, fishing FV, etc.), the second is our ship (HMS). Although the steam ship is a steamship, SS ...
              In Russia at the time of the sailing fleet there was a similar class - "ship". And there was a "frigate". And both carried sailing equipment "by ship", but the purpose was different. In connection with the existing battle tactics - battle in the line - the "ship" was also called the "battleship". And "frigate" is reconnaissance, patrol. And, most interestingly, both could be used as cruisers - again, the purpose, the task at the time.
              In the era of the birth of armored Russia, the "battleship" class disappeared, was replaced by the "armored ship", "battleship", "squadron battleship" and was revived only after Tsushima, when it became clear that the line formation (tactics) did not disappear anywhere. By the beginning of the Second MV, the term "battleship" was already in fact the national name of the class, although it did not quite reflect its purpose.
              Now the cruiser, the destroyer, the destroyer, and the frigate are rather historical class names that often do not reflect their purpose. "Fighter" already protects more (as part of AMG, DESO, etc.) than destroys someone. The cruiser is more likely just a large battleship than a "destroyer of trade" on communications.
              1. Flooding
                Flooding 27 March 2021 22: 54
                0
                Quote: evmarine
                "Battleship" literally "ship for battle, battle"

                well, such a little is clear to me even without a dictionary
                but the term was called battleships
                It's a pleasure to read your comments.
        2. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 11: 24
          +3
          Quote: Flood
          That is, if Great Britain had not signed the aforementioned treaty, the ship would have been called a destroyer?

          Cruiser.
          All the same, 5500 tons for a destroyer is a lot.
          As the saying goes "They won't understand us ..."
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 11: 48
          +5
          Quote: Flood
          Controversial. Military ship, armed ship

          Argue if you like. But if you use the ship's commander for the military and the ship's captain for civilians, you will look more competent.
          Quote: Flood
          if Great Britain had not signed the aforementioned treaty, and the ship would have been called a destroyer?

          Of course not. The USSR or the Netherlands did not sign contracts, but they did not start EM for 6K from this.
          Quote: Flood
          But in fact, what makes it different from a destroyer?

          For the realities of 30 heads, the destroyer from the rest of the ships, including the "small military", is distinguished, in fact, by mines, that is, torpedoes. The same goes for the Destroyer. If it is assumed that the ship will go into torpedo attacks - this is a destroyer, if it is assumed that it will shoot back from these same attacks from artillery - then a counter-destroyer (France) or a leader (eg USSR, see leader Tashkent). It is assumed that the leader has the same weapons as the EM, has little or no armor, but has a high speed to interact with the EM. Depending on national traditions, the leader stood out as an independent class or smoothly flowed into a small light cruiser, for example. Dutch Tromp. The appearance of armor, the appearance of 6 "guns, the growth in size - all this moved the ship into the class of cruisers.
          Over time, this idea eroded. The Germans put 6 "on their EMs, the Japanese built the Akizuki air defense destroyer, which is no longer a torpedo ship in its concept, the Americans made an EM of the Fletcher type with very strong artillery and hints of booking, etc. But in general, the classification was preserved, especially as times for the British - they have an Abdiel mine, 100 mm main battery, 2 tons of VI, without armor, 650 knots is a mine cruiser... There is no question of a hefty Dido, a cruiser with no options.

          Your optics are some of the missile times, when ships were thrown from one class to another. The same CD "Grozny", for example. In the end, they came to classify "down", as a result of which ships, which the day before yesterday would have been unambiguously cruisers, are now considered destroyers, or even frigates.
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 27 March 2021 12: 29
            -3
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Argue if you like. But if you use the ship's commander for the military and the ship's captain for civilians, you will look more competent.

            wonderful sample of logic
            But what about the "ship captains" on dry cargo ships, tankers, bulk carriers, passenger ships?
            Or will we cross all the floating craft with the captain on board into ships?

            About the rest later. Great theme.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 12: 51
              +5
              Quote: Flood
              wonderful sample of logic

              I'm not going to hack with you on this topic. Don't like pseudo-sea show-offs - whatever you want.
              1. Flooding
                Flooding 27 March 2021 22: 04
                -1
                Quote: Cherry Nine

                I'm not going to hack with you on this topic. Don't like pseudo-sea show-offs - whatever you want.

                I figured out the captains too
                was not attentive
                read and write between approaches to weights
                see, the blood drained from the head))
                but I don’t refuse the "warship"
            2. evmarine
              evmarine 27 March 2021 21: 33
              +4
              I have worked at sea for 17 years, never the CAPTAIN of my SHIP was the CAPTAIN of a SHIP. There is such a position - CAPTAIN on the ship. The military men have a SHIP COMMANDER according to the charter. There is also maritime practice, there are national traditions, and there are guidelines.
              In the 90s, the owner took a former truck driver as a minder. Got stuck with him. For him, the concept of "shore" is a rest, "a hundred grams" and women ... For a mechanic who has been to the sea and drank something for how much, this is, first of all, an opportunity to repair, stock up ... The sea is a serious thing, does not forgive the weak spirit and brains.
              This is with regards to disputes about captains and commanders, ships and ships. This is from the opera, which is correct - compass and compass? It all depends on where you are at the moment and what you are doing. Carrying a container - you are on the ship and you have a captain, shoulder straps on your shoulders and you "carry" a hundred missiles in the cellars - you are the commander of a battleship.
              And the classification is a tricky thing. One unit in a couple of years can change the 5th grade once, the other - the whole period will rewind the way it was enrolled. Again, the classifications change regularly, the translation into Russian and the assignment to a comparable national class change. Therefore, no matter how sad it sounds, in order to know who is in front of you - "cruiser" or "destroyer", "advice" or "messenger ship" - you just have to be in the subject and know, "learn materiel", how on the forums they say. Otherwise, it will be like with cars for blondes, all cars will be divided into "red" and "ugly" ... (girls, no offense!).
              1. Flooding
                Flooding 27 March 2021 21: 43
                -1
                Quote: evmarine
                I have worked at sea for 17 years, never the CAPTAIN of my SHIP was the CAPTAIN of a SHIP. There is such a position - CAPTAIN on the ship. The military men have a SHIP COMMANDER according to the charter.

                thanks for the great comment
                I have already managed to understand the issue a bit
                it all started with a "military ship"
                "captain" was used to illustrate the difference between ship and ship
            3. ANB
              ANB 29 March 2021 01: 36
              0
              ... Or will we cross all floating facilities with a captain on board into ships?

              To the courts. The captain is on the ship. On the ship is the commander.
          2. Flooding
            Flooding 27 March 2021 21: 24
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            There is no question of a hefty Dido, a cruiser with no options.

            I admit that you are right.
            I did not expect that even the 130mm caliber was too big for the destroyers of that time. And 10 main battery guns speak in favor of the cruiser.

            But I didn't understand with the destroyers.
            Were they like a class in Britain?
            Not found.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 23: 53
              0
              I do not understand the question. I talked about a high-speed minelayer (for setting anchor mines)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdiel-class_minelayer

              There were also torpedo boats, torpedo boats or torpedo boats, for example
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vosper_73_ft_motor_torpedo_boat

              As for the EM, the British called it Destroyer, but at the same time it remained a mine (= torpedo) ship in terms of the same naval treaties.
              1. Flooding
                Flooding 28 March 2021 06: 39
                -1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                As for the EM, the British called it Destroyer, but at the same time it remained a mine (= torpedo) ship in terms of the same naval treaties.

                Destroyers
                Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1 inch (130 mm) caliber.

                Everything is clear with destroyers.
                I found torpedo boats in the marine encyclopedia.
                But the actual destroyers as a class among the British, it seems, did not exist.

                If we translate into our terms, we call the destroyers destroyers.
                But where are the destroyers? Not torpedo boats, after all.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 28 March 2021 07: 03
                  0
                  By WWII, as far as I know, the British have outlived destroyers in the old style.
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 28 March 2021 12: 33
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    By WWII, as far as I know, the British have outlived destroyers in the old style.

                    Not at all...
                    They smoothly shifted to the Destroyer Escort class.
                    A good example is the Khanty.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 28 March 2021 13: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                      escort destroyers (Destroyer Escort).
                      A good example is the Khanty.

                      Destroyer escort boats in general and the Khanty in particular, it seems to me, are extremely far from the shahid-shalands in the style of the French young school, which I mean by "old-style destroyers."
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 28 March 2021 13: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Destroyers in general and the Khanty in particular, it seems to me, are extremely far from the shahid-shaland in the style of the French young school

                        Science does not stand still ... :)
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 28 March 2021 18: 35
                        0
                        Come on. Slow, not overloaded with weapons, but maximally seaworthy ocean ships are certainly not old-school destroyers. By the way, torpedoes appeared only on types 3 and 4.

                        Unless they are misqualified as Destroyers. And so - excellent frigates.
          3. Tavrik
            Tavrik 28 March 2021 22: 45
            -1
            And they had escort destroyers, sloops, corvettes, and frigates ... The British are entertainers in this regard.
            With the "Scylla" and "Charybdis" in general it turned out interesting: cruisers, but the main caliber is smaller than that of the destroyers. "Toothless Horror". Anything happens in life.
  3. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 27 March 2021 10: 30
    +2
    Now there are destroyers that are larger than the then cruisers))) In general, the term "destroyer" is ours, Russian. Anglo-Saxons, ships of this type are called "Destroyer" - this is written in the abbreviations of their names.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 27 March 2021 10: 46
      -1
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Anglo-Saxons, ships of this type are called "Destroyer" - this is written in the abbreviations of their names.

      Thank you!
      This is essentially the solution to the problem.
      In the difference between classes and terms.
      In fact, we are trying to fit their ships into our own classification for simplicity.
      It didn't occur to me.
      Although the clue is obvious in the English-language texts.
      I will try to figure it out at my leisure, at the same time I will learn new words
      https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/royal-navy
    2. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Anglo-Saxons, ships of this type are called "Destroyer" - this is written in the abbreviations of their names.

      The tracing paper from the term "fighter (destroyers)" somehow did not take root in the RIF.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 27 March 2021 14: 32
        +1
        As well as the "counter-torpillier" in French.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 14: 42
          +1
          Quote: TermNachTER
          As well as the "counter-torpillier" in French.

          Whoa? .. :)

          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 27 March 2021 16: 41
            0
            This refers to a later period when the French began to classify their ships according to Anglo-Saxon standards. Now they have frigates and destroyers, and not torpilliers and counter-torpilliers)))
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 16: 50
              +1
              Quote: TermNachTER
              This refers to a later period when the French began to classify their ships according to Anglo-Saxon standards.

              But we are talking about the first half of the XNUMXth century. :)
              It is now clear that the classifications have changed.

              Vaughn pr. 58 was first a missile destroyer, and then, out of fear of the enemies, became a missile cruiser. :)
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 27 March 2021 17: 09
                +2
                Well, Duc and Bainbridge was at first an atomic frigate)))
  • Walking
    Walking 27 March 2021 07: 31
    +2
    All torpedo losses. Served well.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 08: 34
    +3
    There is nothing to add here, the project was more than successful.


    Strange assessment. It is rare to see a positive assessment of this type of ship. Timely in concept, it turned out to be very poor in implementation, primarily due to an unsuccessful five-and-one-quarter gun, and the balance of the far / middle / near aura was poorly chosen and revised.

    Considering that, as practice has shown, the guns managed to fire TWO shots against low-flying torpedo bombers and mastheads, at best, the effectiveness was low. And the British had a radar fuse only towards the end of the war.


    And here, on the contrary, there is slander. The radio fuse is an Anglo-American development, they both had it and appeared by the end of the war. For everyone else, it appeared much later. The claim is rather to the manual installation of a remote fuse - the Americans did this by a machine that received data from the ship's OMS.
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 11: 41
      +4
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      The claim is rather to the manual installation of a remote fuse - the Americans did this by a machine that received data from the ship's OMS.

      The British also had an automatic distance adjuster in their towers.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 11: 54
        +1
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        it was quite an automatic distance setter.

        the trouble with this gun was that there was only one type of fuse for the projectiles - mechanical, with manual presetting of the distance

        That is, is Mr. Skomorokhov misleading readers? Not good.

        Well, to clarify the question, I was somehow not interested in this aspect before.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 11: 59
          +4
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          That is, is Mr. Skomorokhov misleading readers? Not good.

          Not only in this ...
          Quote from "author"
          But the trouble with this weapon was that there was only one type of fuse - mechanical, with manual presetting of distance.

          For the 133-mm gun, there were two types of projectiles: semi-armor-piercing (SAP) with a bottom fuse and, so to speak, a "universal" high-explosive (HE), which was equipped with either a remote head fuse or a contact fuse ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 12: 08
            +1
            Well, then I saw just sloppy wording. It is clear that we are talking about AAS; for semi-armor-piercing, a remote fuse is not required. But the automatic setting of the distance is essential.
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 27 March 2021 14: 36
      +2
      Again, the author expresses his personal opinion. Many British authors, including those who served on these ships, do not speak very well of them. 132,7 mm. the gun turned out to be not very good as an anti-aircraft gun and not very good for surface targets, since it was significantly inferior to the favorite British "six-inch" gun in terms of shell weight.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 27 March 2021 20: 46
        +2
        And I was confused by this phrase - "and two cruisers," Scylla "and" Charybdis ", were generally armed with outdated universal 114-mm guns." - why are 114mm obsolete? Against planes, in comparison with 133mm guns - the very thing.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 27 March 2021 22: 35
          +1
          Because the author most likely copied the article from Wikipedia, not understanding what he was writing.
        2. unknown
          unknown 28 March 2021 01: 08
          0
          There, rather, the problem is in the unitary shot.
          Based on the experience of the WWII, they came to the conclusion that the optimal mass of a projectile for manual loading is about 25 kg, that is, the mass of projectiles of calibers 120 - 127 mm.
          The 114 mm cannon had a fairly heavy shell for its caliber, weighing 25 kg.
          That, in the "optimal mass" fit ...
          But, in a unitary shot, the mass is greater, plus the length of the shot. Inconvenient.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 28 March 2021 12: 48
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            There, rather, the problem is in the unitary shot.

            So the British quickly decided it when they switched to the Mk. III and IV, introducing separate loading.
          2. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 29 March 2021 17: 43
            0
            It is so outdated that it is still in service with the British Navy, on the destroyers of project 45. Although they are from 132,7 - mm. were developed almost simultaneously.
          3. Usher
            Usher 30 March 2021 03: 16
            -2
            Quote: ignoto
            There, rather, the problem is in the unitary shot.
            Based on the experience of the WWII, they came to the conclusion that the optimal mass of a projectile for manual loading is about 25 kg, that is, the mass of projectiles of calibers 120 - 127 mm.
            The 114 mm cannon had a fairly heavy shell for its caliber, weighing 25 kg.
            That, in the "optimal mass" fit ...
            But, in a unitary shot, the mass is greater, plus the length of the shot. Inconvenient.

            but the rate of fire is higher.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 March 2021 12: 35
        0
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Again, the author expresses his personal opinion. Many British authors, including those who served on these ships, do not speak very well of them. 132,7 mm. the gun turned out to be not very good as an anti-aircraft gun and not very good for surface targets, since it was significantly inferior to the favorite British "six-inch" gun in terms of shell weight.

        There, in addition to the guns themselves, there was also a problem with the lightweight hull: due to the too "flexible" bow on the early Didos, the tower "A" was prone to jamming on waves or during a sharp change of course. They tried to solve the problem by strengthening the bow, and officially it was considered solved ... but in practice, even in 1950, tower "A" on Euryalus was constantly out of order.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 29 March 2021 19: 31
          0
          The Dido was not only weak in the nose, but in the body in general, although it was developed on the basis of the aretuse. Three "Didos" were sunk by torpedo hits from German and Italian submarines.
          1. Macsen_wledig
            Macsen_wledig 29 March 2021 22: 54
            0
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The Dido was not only weak in the nose, but in the body in general, although it was developed on the basis of the aretuse. Three "Didos" were sunk by torpedo hits from German and Italian submarines.

            And what is the connection?
            "Galatea" and "Penelope" are also sunk by submarines ... from this the "nymphs" have weak hulls?
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 30 March 2021 12: 00
              0
              From the fact that the hull was a meter longer and there were many cutouts in the deck, which the Aretuse did not have.
              1. Macsen_wledig
                Macsen_wledig 30 March 2021 18: 18
                0
                Quote: TermNachTER
                From the fact that the hull was a meter longer and there were many cutouts in the deck, which the Aretuse did not have.

                You are pulling an owl onto a globe ... :)
                1. TermNachTer
                  TermNachTer 30 March 2021 19: 33
                  0
                  What exactly? The hull has become a meter longer, in the deck there are five huge cutouts for the towers, not counting other smaller ones. For experienced shipbuilders like the British, an unforgivable mistake. Comparison with “Penelope” and “Galatea” is not very correct. Two torpedoes were stuck in the first, and even three in the second. Three torpedoes would have been enough even for the "town".
                  1. Macsen_wledig
                    Macsen_wledig 30 March 2021 20: 36
                    0
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    The body has become a meter longer,

                    At least one dido broke?

                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    in the deck there are five huge cutouts for the towers, not counting other smaller ones.

                    Why are you sure that the five cutouts for feeding pipes with a diameter of approx. 2,4 m is much worse than cutouts for three barbets with a diameter of 5,33 m?
                    Have you counted all the hatches on both types of ships? What is the total area?
                    You have to compare ...

                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    For experienced shipbuilders like the British, an unforgivable mistake.

                    Which historian shares your opinion?

                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Two torpedoes were stuck in the first, and even three in the second. Three torpedoes would have been enough even for the "town".

                    It all depends on the place of hit ... :)
                    "Argonaut", won, and the bow and stern were torn off, and nothing - restored ...
                    And if you dig the sources, it is not a fact that Galatea received three torpedoes.
                    1. TermNachTer
                      TermNachTer 30 March 2021 21: 11
                      0
                      In matters of the strength of the hull of a ship (vessel), the opinion of historians is of little interest to me, if they are not shipbuilders. As a sailor, I studied TUS, albeit very briefly, because it was not my profile. Of the "didoshek" no one broke, but they were drowning from being hit by one torpedo. There are suspicions that the reason for this is the weakness of the ship's set. And the deck kit is just one of their weak points. Two notches of 2,5 meters in a row, it can be much worse than one - 5,3.
                      1. Macsen_wledig
                        Macsen_wledig 30 March 2021 22: 50
                        0
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Of the "didoshek" no one broke, but they were drowning from being hit by one torpedo. There are suspicions that the reason for this is the weakness of the ship's set.

                        Here, rather, the question is to the general design of the ship in terms of determining the criteria for unsinkability.
                        One could speak of a "crooked" project as a whole if the "dido" did not survive at all after torpedo hits, but they survived, even if they were "treated" for a long time afterwards ...
                      2. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 30 March 2021 23: 22
                        0
                        This, incidentally, once again speaks of the weakness of the ship's kit. Deformation of longitudinal and lateral ties, watertight bulkheads and decks, respectively, required extensive repairs. And the "didoshki" were drowning faster than the "aretyuz". On average, from the moment of hit to immersion 20 - 30 minutes.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 27 March 2021 10: 27
    +5
    The author again wrote a lot of nonsense. The idea of ​​a cruiser with one universal caliber has been hovering for a long time, in many countries. The advantages of a cruiser with one universal caliber and, accordingly, a single PUAO - PUAZO, are so clear that it is not even worth explaining. By the way, air defense cruisers, like the American Atlantes, they began to be called after WWII, during the war, they were "naval cruisers"))) And finally, the last nonsense - "the 114-mm gun is" obsolete "))) an excellent gun, in various modifications, which stood in service with the Royal Navy until the beginning of the XXI century))) Roman, do not write about what you do not understand.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 11: 11
      +5
      Quote: TermNachTER
      "gun 114 - mm" obsolete "

      )))
      Yes, it was also hooked, but then somehow I did not pay attention. The 4.5 "/ 45 QF cannon was used on the modernized old LKs, but it is itself from the late 30s, one of the best guns in its class. Unlike the 5.25".
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 27 March 2021 14: 38
        +2
        So after all, subsequent modifications were even pr. 42, the last one was written off in 2010. I don’t know what is on pr. 45.
        1. Macsen_wledig
          Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 16: 34
          +3
          Quote: TermNachTER
          on Ave 45.

          If you are talking about "daring" (Type 45), then 4.5 "/ 55 Mark 8 Mod 1.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 27 March 2021 16: 38
            +1
            If I'm not mistaken, then 4,5 inches is 114 mm.)))
            1. Macsen_wledig
              Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 16: 52
              +2
              Quote: TermNachTER
              If I'm not mistaken, then 4,5 inches is 114 mm.)))

              Well, yes, if the length of the imperial inch has not suddenly changed. :)
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 27 March 2021 17: 08
                0
                I have not heard, but perhaps I missed something)))) laughing
  • Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 27 March 2021 11: 20
    +7
    What can I say ... As long as the author quotes something, everything is fine.
    But when he begins to think out: at least stand, at least fall ... :)

    In the concept of using the Royal Navy, in connection with the appearance of aviation (and the British were among the first to realize that the future of the aircraft was at sea), there was an understanding that the ships had a worthy enemy - a naval bomber and a torpedo bomber.

    The author is not in the subject.
    Initially, the project "dido" was developed on the "theme" "RA (D) Flagship", that is, "Flagship (rear admiral) commander of destroyers."

    Significantly reduced the fuel supply, removed the hangar with the seaplane and a catapult, a crane for lifting a seaplane, a tank for aviation fuel.

    For a start, I would like to see the drawings of at least one "aretyuz" with a hangar. :)

    But the freed up weight was aimed at installing five turrets with two universal 152-mm guns each instead of the three towers with 133-mm guns like those of Aretuza.

    The author is completely out of the topic of designing "didoshek".
    At the first stage, the option with a universal main battery was not considered at all: 120-140-mm main guns in single-gun mounts + four 102-mm anti-aircraft guns. They thought about strengthening the air defense only in 1935, and then the “air defense option” was considered in parallel with the so-called “improved“ aretyuse. ”In the universal version, the main battery was supposed to be 114-mm in twin pairs developed for the Arc Royal.
    By the end of the year, it was decided to equip the new ship with a 130-mm universal gun in the turrets.
    Yes ... the 133mm originally had a 130mm caliber. :)

    and four single-barreled "Erlikon" 20-mm.

    Again the author is in a puddle: initially, the "Dido" was equipped with two quad 12,7-mm "Vickers" Mk.III.

    American "Atlantes", which we have already talked about in due time, were built with an eye on "Dido".

    Yes ... The Americans also needed a destroyer leader. :)

    and two cruisers, "Scylla" and "Charybdis", were armed with generally outdated universal 114-mm guns.

    The author is again not in the subject ... The 4.5 "/ 45 (11.4 cm) QF Marks I, III and IV gun was put into service in 1938 and was used by British ships up to the 2nd Arc Royal (that is, until the beginning of 50 -x). Probably because it's obsolete. :)

    Reservations.

    The author was able to give the most incomprehensible description without specifying the details of the booking. :)

    It was noted that habitability was sacrificed to the combat characteristics of the ships, which were famous for their large overcrowding, small living space and poor ventilation of living quarters.
    .
    And where can you read about that?
    (What else am I talking about? The author will not answer anyway)

    And for light surface ships from the destroyer and below, it was just gorgeous.

    Examples? Sources?
    However, the author will not answer again.

    That is, in fact, the distance setter was always one shot late.

    In fact, the author does not know what it is and how the anti-aircraft barrage is built.

    The first cruisers in the series received a 102-mm anti-aircraft gun. One thing. Since it did not carry any special value at all, already in 1941 all the cruisers lost it. The exception was "Charybdis", from which the gun was removed in 1943.

    The author continues to be out of topic: 102-mm on 4-turret "didos" were installed in order to somehow compensate for the absence of the 5th turret.
    On "Charybdis" there was not an anti-aircraft 102-mm, in a 4 "/ 45 (10.2 cm) QF cannon for firing lighting shells.

    This is the main ... Further digging laziness. :)
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2021 12: 15
      +2
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      What am I talking about? The author still won't answer

      - And who are you?
      - I am a summer resident from Leningrad.
      - Get out of the hall!
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 27 March 2021 14: 41
      +5
      Also, he expressed the opinion that Roman should write about what he understands))) even in Wikipedia there are good articles dedicated to "Dido" - this is not to dig very deeply. An article dedicated to "Kitakami", almost entirely "pulled" from Vladislav Goncharov from the WARSPOT website.
    3. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 27 March 2021 22: 44
      +2
      And then it is already necessary))) and so everything is clear. Whoever is "in business", he already understood everything. Whoever is not, that does not need.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 27 March 2021 21: 00
    +1
    Thank you Roman! You are doing great with this series of articles. good
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 28 May 2021 05: 33
    0
    I wonder when this 4,5 / 45 "cannon had time to become obsolete, if it was developed simultaneously with the 5,25 / 50" cannon?
    About the ship / ship.
    With all my sincere respect for Nikolai Gerasimovich, it should be admitted that the introduction of the division: a ship-civilian, a ship-military or sailing, created some confusion.
    The term "ship" from time immemorial denoted both the type of sailing armament and the rank of a warship in the categories:
    Ship-frigate-corvette-sloop.
    Therefore, when Padua, sorry, Kruzenshtern, is called a ship, you always want to ask: what then happened to him with the mizzen?
    The same goes for a warship. Kuznetsov is definitely a ship, but what a trawler ... Will it not be fat?
    In general, in my deep conviction, it is possible and necessary to use the terminology introduced by Kuznetsov, but it is not necessary to elevate it to an absolute.
    As for the article ... Well, it was pulled from there, from here. Seasoned with semechko-squat-at-entrance dialect. Okay.