Military Review

Beyond Aircraft Carriers: Historical Reflections on One Discussion

81
Beyond Aircraft Carriers: Historical Reflections on One Discussion

Military fleets: the path of growth



The idea of ​​this article came to the author in the course of observing the discussion that unfolded on the pages of the "Military Review" about the need for Russian fleet in aircraft carriers. While I fully share the position of one of the parties in this discussion, I would nevertheless note that among the arguments on “both sides of the barrier” a similar thought was voiced. Our public, as a rule, is poorly aware of the historical path that the navies have traveled in their development. This is not surprising for a country whose military victories have been won over the past two and a half centuries, almost exclusively on land (the Sinop battle seems to be an exception in this series).

Therefore, an attempt to describe that path (of course, extremely briefly and popularly), the path that the Russian fleet traveled before it ended up in its current state, should help introduce a conversation about future aircraft carriers (even hypothetical), into historical the context of how in reality the confrontation at sea with the participation of Russia took place, starting with the period of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, the format of this publication allows us to outline only the most general outlines of this process - no more. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of the readers will find such a review interesting and will make it possible to better understand the path that naval development has taken to our time.

So, let's begin.

As you know, the military fleets of the modern era appeared in the XNUMXth century. This emergence was facilitated by two prerequisites. The first was the creation of world trade sea routes connecting continents as a result of the Great Geographical Discoveries. Cargoes of great value began to move along these routes. Accordingly, a desire arose to intercept them or, on the contrary, to protect them. These tasks were called upon to solve the newly formed fleets. The second prerequisite is the significantly increased financial capabilities of centralized states, which allowed them to afford such expensive "toys".

In the middle of the XNUMXth century, the sailing fleets that had existed for two centuries were replaced by mechanical ones, which, albeit completely changed, still exist today. Here we will talk about them. Moreover, we are not talking about coastal fleets, whose task is to protect their own coast from enemy invasion, but about the so-called "big fleet", designed to solve the tasks assigned to it far from their own shores. This is a fundamental feature of such a fleet, which is often simply not realized. For example, when they try to justify its necessity for Russia, referring to the huge length of its coastline. But the "big fleet" is not for this.

I would like to draw attention to this circumstance, since even today one can hear how the justification of the need to build, for example, an aircraft carrier, an indication that otherwise there is a threat of losing Kamchatka. Of course, this is simply an absurd judgment, calculated precisely for the lack of understanding that the "large fleet" is intended to operate in sea areas remote from its territory.

And the task, the fulfillment of which was possible only on foreign shores, was available to the Russian Imperial Navy. It is designated in one word - Bosphorus! The mastery of this Black Sea strait, "closest" to our country (and after that, possibly the second, the Dardanelles) was the country's main foreign policy goal. However, despite several attempts, they all failed.

The formation of steam armored fleets was a continuous process that took about half a century, which was marked by the continuous improvement of literally all ship elements. She developed so rapidly that often the newest ship became obsolete, not even having time to enter service. In many ways, it was the military fleet that occupied the image of the industrial power of the state in the public consciousness and outstripped the army as a symbol of military power. After all, the armies of that period, despite also being improved weapon, in their structure were the same as in the previous era. They were distinguished by foot movement, horses as the main draft force, division into infantry, cavalry and artillery.

Against this background, the fleet appeared in the form of a real “guest from the future”. The ships were literally packed with the latest advances in mechanics, hydraulics, metallurgy, optics, electrical engineering and instrument making. Self-propelled sea mine - torpedo, became the first self-driving vehicle in the history of mankind. In terms of technical complexity, it was surpassed only by long-range missiles that appeared in Germany at the end of World War II. Sea guns were the most destructive weapons of that time, and for their precise aiming at the target at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the prototypes of the first electromechanical computers appeared!

The needs of these new fleets changed world politics. In particular, the leading maritime powers during this period were distinguished by the desire to increase their territory at the expense of some islands in the ocean, which a few decades ago were of no value in the eyes of politicians. Now, thanks to the possibility of setting up coal stations there and at least the most elementary repair bases (which sailing ships did not need), their attractiveness as national territories has increased dramatically.

This was followed by a theory (as well as the associated ideology), which proclaimed the development of the navies as the main goal of the industrial development of the state. Ideology was called "marineism", and the theory associated with it - the theory of sea power. Its creators were the American naval officer A. Mahan and the British F. Colomb. According to their views, which quickly spread both in the naval and in the political environment, the outcome of the confrontation between states will be decided in the battle of the fleets. After that, the victorious side will become the owner of dominance at sea, which will allow it to freely carry out its own maritime transportation and prevent such from the enemy.

In turn, this will entail economic collapse for those who cannot reap the benefits of the maritime trade. At the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, the theory of naval power turned into a true "bible" for those who fought for naval development as a condition for the all-round development of the state. Moreover, the war, which, it would seem, fully proved the validity of this theory, did not take long. And Russia became one of its two participants. But more on that later.

Russian naval wars before the beginning of the twentieth century


In the meantime, consider the role of the fleet in the wars that our country waged in the industrial era before the collision with Japan. Both began against Russia's traditional adversary, Turkey. However, in 1854, due to the gross foreign policy mistakes of Nicholas I, two of the most powerful European states at that time joined it: France and England. After that, the achievement of the above-mentioned main goal that Russia pursued in the Black Sea - the Bosphorus - was out of the question. In fact, the actions of the Russian sailors were reduced to the defense of Sevastopol (which eventually had to be abandoned), and to the defense against attacks by the allied fleet in other seas.

Without touching upon the events of the Crimean War themselves, we will only touch upon the issue of the lessons that were learned from its experience and were entrenched, both among professional sailors and in society as a whole. Unfortunately, for various reasons, these lessons turned out to be erroneous and subsequently turned into great damage, which has not been completely eliminated to this day.

What exactly is it about?

To begin with, although there were several naval theaters in this war, as indicated above, nevertheless, it was the Black Sea theater that became a subject of special post-war pride. To be more precise, the war in Crimea, or more precisely, the defense of Sevastopol. The paradox of this situation was that it was there that the actions of the fleet were the least successful, passive and not distinguished by the desire to inflict the greatest damage on the enemy.

At that time in the Baltic and the Far East in 1854-1855. Russian sailors demonstrated examples of competent, skillful defense capable of destroying the enemy's plans. Yes, even on the Black Sea, the defense of Nikolaev can serve as a similar example. But from ideological considerations, from the desire to heroize the figure of Admiral Nakhimov as much as possible, to declare all his decisions to be the only correct ones, the actions of the fleet in self-flooding without the intention of resisting the enemy were extolled in every possible way. Half a century later, this led to the defeat of Port Arthur.
No less, and perhaps even more instructive and paradoxical, are the lessons learned from the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, both in the Navy and in the country as a whole.

Perhaps it is she who owns the dubious "honor" of becoming the most falsified in public memory and being deposited in the memory of descendants in a completely different way than it was perceived by contemporaries. The decision to start it was given by the highest Russian authorities extremely difficult. On the one hand, an extraordinary social upsurge and a sense of unity with the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula, who were terrorized by the Ottoman Porte, pushed the government to take action. And the alarming precedent with the entry into the Black Sea of ​​the Anglo-French squadron in 1854, which turned into a landing in the Crimea and the siege of Sevastopol, which ended with the surrender of the fortress, could be repeated again.

In this situation, the old idea of ​​"planting a cross on Hagia Sophia" acquired a new, relevant meaning: the ability to establish itself on at least one coast of the Bosphorus meant for the Romanov empire the possibility of preventing the entry of the fleet of third countries into the Black Sea. But, on the other hand, the financial situation in the country, which was carrying out large-scale reforms affecting the very foundations of public life, was extremely unstable, and from this point of view, the war was seen as undesirable. The only result that could justify it was the achievement of Constantinople. This was the purpose of the war plan developed by General N.N. Obruchev. But, as you know, it was not executed.

And the reason for this is not at all the opposition of the European powers, as is often thought. It is rooted in the indiscretion of the Russian command and in the system that reserved vacancies in the top military leadership for representatives of the ruling family during the war, but at the same time exempted them from any responsibility for mistakes and blunders made in these posts. After all, both fronts in that war were commanded by the grand dukes - the brothers and sisters of Emperor Alexander II. His eldest son, the heir to the throne, was also in the active army and participated in the decision-making process.

Therefore, there should have been no shadow of doubts about the correctness and lack of alternative of these decisions, and the responsibility for the fact that the goals of the war were not achieved, official propaganda blamed on the insidiousness of the participants in the Berlin Congress, who deprived Russia of the fruits of its victory. However, the then citizens of the country were not inclined to relieve the top leadership of responsibility for the fact that the expected goal of the war - the capture of Constantinople - was not achieved. Proof of this is the political crisis that broke out in the country (or, to use the expression of V. Lenin, “revolutionary situation”), which eventually turned into the assassination of the emperor on March 1, 1881.

Concerning the question of the role of the fleet in these events, we, again, are faced with a situation of a certain ambiguity. On the one hand, we have always paid great attention to the actions of mine boats (a new type of small warships that arose during the American Civil War). This is especially true of the boats that were part of the crew of the steamer "Grand Duke Konstantin" under the command of S.O. Makarov. On the other hand, many issues of actions (as well as inaction) of the fleet in this war are covered, so to speak, with a veil of reticence. These include the following.

Why, despite the denunciation by Russia six years before the war of the provisions of the Parisian treatise of 1856, requiring the demilitarization of the Black Sea, she did not manage to acquire ships with high combat value in this theater (with the exception of two coastal defense battleships - "popovoks", legendary thanks to its curiosity)? Or why was Russia unable to launch a cruising war against Turkey in the Mediterranean, for which it had been preparing for two decades (meaning to turn it against British trade)?

Beginning with the descriptions of this war, another regrettable tendency characteristic of Russian literature originates. We are talking about attempts to conceal the foreign origin of those samples of naval mine weapons, which, in the absence of large ships in Russia, have perfectly proven themselves in this war.
In the case of the Whitehead torpedo, with the help of which an enemy ship was sunk for the first time in the world on January 26, 1878 in the Batumi roadstead, in the domestic literature one could often find a statement about the existence of its more effective domestic analogue - the Aleksandrovsky torpedo.

But in another case, the foreign origin of weapons that were used against the Turkish fleet, until the 1990s. stubbornly hiding. We are talking about the most advanced galvanic mine barrage at that time, developed in Germany by Dr. Albert Hertz, the most advanced in the world at that time. The Russian naval department on the eve of the war and during it purchased large quantities of these mines. However, apparently, some conditions of the contract were violated, since Turkey, having learned about the use of these mines against its ships, protested.

After that, the name "Hertz's mine" in Russian literature was classified, and for many years they began to be designated as "sphero-conical". It was the use of these mines that made it possible to solve the most important strategic task facing the Russian army in the initial period of the war: to cover the Danube crossings from Turkish ships seeking to disrupt them. Also, Hertz's mines were used in the defense of Russian ports from a possible attack by the Turkish fleet.

Soon after the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander III, a 20-year fleet-building program was adopted, according to which the first armored ships were laid down on the Black Sea. The main strategic task assigned to him was still the capture of the Bosphorus. For it, he continued to prepare for the next more than a third of a century.

However, the next time the Russian fleet had to join the battle many thousands of kilometers away, in the Far East. The Russo-Japanese War became a real test of the theory of naval domination (or ownership of the sea), and that is why the attention of sailors and politicians around the world was riveted to it. It was in its purest form a naval war, since all the Japanese forces and supplies that arrived at the theater of operations were delivered by sea, and if the Russian fleet was able to prevent this delivery, the army of the Land of the Rising Sun would not have been able to achieve any success in the confrontation with the Russian.

But, unfortunately, as in the Crimean War, our fleet practically abandoned active operations (with the exception of the Vladivostok cruising detachment) and again, as then, focused on the defense of its own base. An attempt to abandon this, unambiguously pernicious strategy, was undertaken by S.O. Makarov, but, as you know, his command of the Pacific squadron did not last long.

But the defeat of the Russian fleet in both squadron battles of this war was largely the result of the so-called "qualification" system, which was established in the Russian fleet in the previous twenty years. She made the advancement of officers dependent on the duration of their voyage, but did not take into account the possession of weapons and tactical training. Therefore, the very fact of the almost round-the-world passage of the 2nd Pacific Squadron from Kronstadt to the Tsushima Strait cannot but arouse admiration, but at the same time, the Russian commanders did not make any attempts to impose their will on the enemy in both battles.

The results of the Russian-Japanese confrontation, as it seemed to contemporaries, fully confirmed Mahan's point of view that the outcome of a modern war is decided at sea. This greatly strengthened the position of the "marineists" and led to a real revolution in the development of naval weapons. It is often called "dreadnought", referring to a new type of battleship, which was the main striking force of the fleet, the first representative of which was the British "Dreadnought". Its main difference from the ships of the previous generation was the adoption of a single main artillery caliber designed to defeat "classmates" in a naval battle.

In turn, this design feature stemmed from the new revolutionary method of firing ship guns. If before that, for several centuries, the gunners used direct fire, that is, they aimed guns at the hull or gear of an enemy ship, now the fire was conducted by the method of correcting for bursts from falling shells. Precisely in order not to confuse the bursts from shells of different calibers, all the heavy guns of the Dreadnought and the ships of this class that followed it had the same caliber.

As for other combat missions that were previously assigned to battleships (which is why they became the focus of a variety of weapons and combat assets, often posing a threat to themselves and not to the enemy), more and more escort ships took over them. First of all, the destroyers.

The revolutionary changes were not limited only to battleships, they covered the entire "line" of combat ships, almost all of their elements (hulls, weapons, power plants, etc.). As well as tactics, methods of building squadrons and combat use - that is, they have become comprehensive in the full sense of the word.

The Romanov empire also joined the process of building new military fleets, built taking into account the "Tsushima" experience, with all the fervor. The shipbuilding programs adopted in it provided for the laying of all classes of ships: from submarines and minesweepers to superdreadnoughts (this was the unofficial name for battleships, which by their displacement and main artillery caliber were much superior to the "ancestor of the genre", "Dreadnought"). The latter included four Ismail-class battlecruisers laid down in St. Petersburg in December 1912.

At the same time, they were not intended for operations in the Baltic. After the completion of construction, these mastodons had to leave it unarmed (for in full load they simply could not pass the Danish straits), and go to the Tunisian port of Bizerte rented from France. There they were to take on board standard weapons and subsequently participate in the operation to seize the straits already from the Dardanelles.

In the Baltic, the primary task of the fleet was still to protect the capital of the empire, Petersburg from the sea. And the first Russian dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type were designed specifically for its implementation. In general, the cost of the fleet before the First World War in Russia assumed enormous proportions and, according to some estimates, reached a quarter of the state budget!

Considering that this war ended extremely unsuccessfully for Russia, and the fleet itself played a rather negative role in it (this will be discussed in more detail in the second part of the article), this could not but give rise to reflections: was it right to give it so much a lot of attention during that period? Could it be possible to find other areas, investments in which were required in the first place, even at the expense of naval construction?

Domestic alternative to the navy?


In our opinion, this question can be answered in the affirmative. We are talking about an industry that, as historical experience shows, is of priority importance for our country, given its geographical features, - railways.

Their military significance manifested itself at the very dawn of their appearance. This happened in the same era of the industrial revolution, to which the beginning of the formation of steam fleets belongs. It soon became clear that the new type of transport could have not only economic, but also military applications.

Although there is a persistent myth about one of the aspects of this application in Russia, which has nothing to do with reality. I mean the often repeated story that the track gauge on the Petersburg-Moscow railway, at the request of Nicholas I, was adopted different from the European one, in order to make it difficult for the aggressors to move through the country by train. The reality was exactly the opposite. It was along the railway linking the Russian Empire with Europe, Warsaw-Vienna, that in the spring of 1849, for the first time in history, a Russian division was transferred, heading to suppress the Hungarian uprising.

So, as we can see, the possibility of the military use of railways began to be realized from the very beginning. And this role of theirs has increased significantly with the introduction of universal military service. For the critical process of mobilization at the moment of the transition of the conscript army to war began to depend on them.

In the absence of other land transport with comparable capabilities, the speed and completeness of mobilization were now determined by the distance that the recruits had to cover to the nearest railway station, from which trains specially allocated by the government were to deliver them to the arsenals, where they could receive weapons and equipment, turning into soldiers. ... For Russia, with its vast expanses and an absolutely predominant rural population, the issue of the density of the railway network in these conditions was of key importance.

All this forced the government to pay great attention to its development, to plan the topology in such a way that it would provide transport accessibility for the masses of conscripts and include strategic lines along which the mobilized army could be deployed in future theaters of military operations.
The device of the rolling stock also took into account military needs. So, the most numerous type of freight cars in Russia is covered, which was also used for military transportation.

Therefore, starting from the last quarter of the XNUMXth century, they were called "normal freight cars" (NTV). It meant that their internal dimensions were standardized for all roads ("normalized") for the quick installation of the so-called "detachable military equipment", the stock of which was available at every major station, which made it possible to adapt the carriage for transporting soldiers and horses. On the roads, there were also the required number of unified locomotives of the "government reserve", which made it possible to standardize the weight of military echelons.

The constant concern of the state about the technical condition of the railways, in order to ensure the maximum throughput and carrying capacity during the period of the most intensive military traffic (it began to be called "special"), was not limited only to issues of unification of rolling stock. And here we come to consider the dramatic fate of one of the key railway technologies, which has historically been closely intertwined with the fate of the Russian military fleet.

The name of this technology is automatic brakes. The fact is that, while talking about the power of steam locomotives, which determines the weight of the trains they are capable of driving, they often forget that the train must not only be moved and accelerated, but also stopped. Moreover, given its great length and weight, this task becomes by no means trivial. The braking efforts of one steam locomotive are completely insufficient for its implementation.

Unfortunately, this is almost always "forgotten" by the creators of historical films. And when we watch a "railway" episode on the screen in any of the many domestic "westerns" dedicated, for example, to the Civil War, we see that only a steam locomotive brigade (officially called then a "servant") is involved in running the train.

The reality was completely different. On the moving train there was another brigade, the number of which far exceeded the locomotive one. And it mainly consisted of people whose duty was to activate the car brakes. In Russia, at first they were called “brakes”, and then they were renamed in the French manner in “brake conductors”. In addition to them, the train crew also included the chief conductor, the senior conductor (their places were on the first and last carriages, respectively), as well as the lubricator responsible for servicing the car axle boxes.

It must be said that the hand brakes, that is, those operated by the hands of the brakes placed on the carriages, had a number of disadvantages. In addition to the fact that this led to an increase in the number of train crews, there was also low traffic safety (they often did not hear the driver's signals about the need to start or stop braking), the speed of trains was limited by the need to start reducing it in advance.

The solution to the problem was continuous pneumatic brakes, numerous systems of which have appeared since the second half of the 1880th century. They allowed the driver on the steam locomotive to apply the brakes of all cars at once, thanks to the presence of a pneumatic network that runs through the entire train. Passenger trains in Russia have been equipped with it since the XNUMXs. Freight vehicles, due to the large volume and variability of the car fleet, continued to operate with hand brakes.

However, in 1898, the Council of State decided that freight cars should also be transferred to automatic pneumatic brakes (the term "automatic" in their name indicated an important property: they worked independently when the train broke and stopped both of its parts, including the tail, which turned out to be without any control).

This was preceded by a tragedy that shook the entire country. A troop train heading for the exercise crashed in a severe thunderstorm. The noise of the elements led to the fact that the brakes did not hear the signals of the driver to brake, and the accelerated train fell off a high embankment when a heavy downpour blurred the path. The carriages toppled into the swamp and many soldiers died.

After the aforementioned resolution of the State Council in St. Petersburg, on Prilukskaya Street, the plant of JSC Vestigauz was built: it was this design that was chosen as the standard for all railway brakes in the country. And since 1905, all new steam locomotives left the factories with a locomotive set of auto-brake equipment, including a steam-air pump, air tanks and a special driver's crane for controlling the brakes.

But with the cars it turned out more difficult. The entire huge, more than half a million fleet of them had to be equipped with very complex equipment, including flight tubes, working tanks, brake cylinders with rods.

The most high-tech were connecting sleeves made of rubber, which was extremely scarce at that time. Perhaps the planned grandiose program could have been fulfilled, but it was in 1905, as you know, that Tsushima happened. After which Nicholas II demanded at all costs to restore the fleet lost in the Far East. And then the echoes of the "dreadnought revolution" reached Russia - and much more grandiose ones came to replace the modestly called "small shipbuilding program". The fleet began to consume even more resources - and the planned transfer of the car fleet to automatic brakes was postponed. The Russian railways entered the world war that broke out in the summer of 1914 with the same hand brakes.

How justified was the chosen priority in favor of marine construction, how the country succeeded in this construction, and what the practical "return" from it turned out to be, we will talk in the second part of the article. And also, in parallel, we will trace the fate of the historical antagonist of the fleet in our country - the railway transport, which was the "backbone" for the land war.

So whose role was more significant?
Author:
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan April 23 2021 15: 23
    -3
    Russia needs aircraft carriers !!!

    An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, he wanted to place it closer to Chukotka to strengthen the defense of its coast, but he wanted to be closer to Japan, Syria, and even to Cuba, so that the "partners" feel not completely safe.

    We need an aircraft carrier both for defense and for attacking the enemy.

    It's like with airborne troops, we need them not to throw them behind enemy lines, but in order to quickly transfer and strengthen the desired direction on our territory, in a few hours, while the land units will travel for weeks from end to end of the country, if the paths are not undermined ... Now one rocket can smash a railway bridge to pieces.
    1. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 April 23 2021 15: 35
      +9
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Russia needs aircraft carriers !!!

      yes, it's not for or against the AIRCRAFT CARRIER ... but the Navy or Russian Railways ...)))) at the beginning of the article for the hype, a couple of paragraphs about aviki and that's it ...
      1. A1845
        A1845 April 23 2021 18: 25
        +11
        This series of articles recalled the phrase: "Amateurs talk about strategy, enthusiasts are interested in tactics, and professionals hammer out logistics."
      2. NIKN
        NIKN April 23 2021 19: 40
        +6
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        Russia needs aircraft carriers !!!

        yes, it's not for or against the AIRCRAFT CARRIER ... but the Navy or Russian Railways ...)))) at the beginning of the article for the hype, a couple of paragraphs about aviki and that's it ...
        Armored trains are needed, as I understand it.
    2. Kars
      Kars April 23 2021 15: 50
      -1
      Russia needs an analogue of the US reserve system, or at least a similar printing press and matrices.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan April 23 2021 16: 06
        +4
        There is a printing press in every country, try to print something superfluous and get hyperinflation like in Zimbabwe at thousands of percent per annum.

        The strength of the United States is not in the printing press, but in the fact that they produce everything they need, or almost everything, and they do a lot of all this, from food and cars to airplanes and microchips.

        And when production grows, it is possible and necessary to increase the money supply in order to ensure trade turnover.

        And don't just turn on the machine when you have a hole in the budget.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 23 2021 18: 19
          +5
          This is probably why the United States has a trillion dollar government debt.
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan April 24 2021 11: 15
            0
            So the trillion-dollar national debt at a meager% and the United States with its # 1 economy in the world can easily serve it.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 24 2021 11: 26
              +3
              Serving printed still green paper.
              Most likely you misunderstood my first message. There was about having an analogue of a printing press and a matrix that would also print dollars.)))
      2. Per se.
        Per se. April 24 2021 17: 01
        +3
        Greetings, Andrey! Russia needs Soviet power and the revival of the Soviet Union. This is the ideal, but at least, so that our Central Bank gets out of the IMF and the Fed, the law is the same for everyone, and taxes are on a progressive scale of income. So, then you can safely fall into the surf at sunset.
    3. max702
      max702 April 23 2021 16: 02
      +2
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      It's like with airborne troops, we need them not to throw them behind enemy lines, but in order to quickly transfer and strengthen the desired direction across our territory,

      And why do they need parachutes and all the equipment and strategy focused on it?
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan April 23 2021 16: 28
        -1
        And why do they need parachutes and all the equipment and strategy focused on it?


        Parachutes for them to land alive and with serviceable equipment. Airfields will not always and not everywhere where necessary.

        And our strategy is defensive.
        1. max702
          max702 April 23 2021 16: 50
          +4
          Pagade! But what is this?
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          It's like with airborne troops, we need them not to throw them behind enemy lines, but in order to quickly transfer and strengthen the desired direction across our territory,

          If we have a simpler airfield at home, it’s hard to imagine that the war on our territory has reached the point that we had to use parachute troops ..
          Painfully, the situation is implausible so that it is spent on all parachute landing training and equipment .. Somehow it is very tense, like suddenly a dinosaur, but I'm ready .. And in addition to all this training and imprisonment, the combat qualities of units are sharply reduced for the equipment is light, little armored, calibers weapons are not very good, and combat stability is lame .. And all this is for the sake of some little real scenario .. But if deep in the rear of the enemy, then there is an option (although in 75 years there has never been such a thing) especially take into account that our probable he puts everything on airspace control .. Will ...
          1. Niko
            Niko April 23 2021 17: 07
            -1
            Quote: max702
            Pagade! But what is this?
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            It's like with airborne troops, we need them not to throw them behind enemy lines, but in order to quickly transfer and strengthen the desired direction across our territory,

            If we have a simpler airfield at home, it’s hard to imagine that the war on our territory has reached the point that we had to use parachute troops ..
            Painfully, the situation is implausible so that it is spent on all parachute landing training and equipment .. Somehow it is very tense, like suddenly a dinosaur, but I'm ready .. And in addition to all this training and imprisonment, the combat qualities of units are sharply reduced for the equipment is light, little armored, calibers weapons are not very good, and combat stability is lame .. And all this is for the sake of some little real scenario .. But if deep in the rear of the enemy, then there is an option (although in 75 years there has never been such a thing) especially take into account that our probable he puts everything on airspace control .. Will ...

            "Will they make it?" - judging by the direction of the article: they will get there by a steam locomotive, the main thing is that the automatic brakes work well
            1. max702
              max702 April 23 2021 17: 10
              +3
              Quote: Niko
              "Will they make it?" - judging by the direction of the article: they will get there by a steam locomotive, the main thing is that the automatic brakes work well

              The author hints that there are more chances to reach the land than by sea .. This is with regards to the article, then there were no other types of transport and the delivery of destructive weapons .. Now the picture has changed somewhat and it is possible to punish not obedient Zusul not only with gunboat diplomacy ..
          2. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan April 24 2021 11: 30
            +1
            This is what we call the Airborne Forces amphibious troops, and all over the world airmobile, that is, those that can be quickly airlifted, this is their main value.

            Conventionally, tomorrow Japan will begin an operation against the Kuriles, Sakhalin and the Far East, we can transfer airborne units there in a few hours, and ground forces will wait for platforms from Russian Railways for a week, then load for several days and travel for a week.

            Now imagine that as a result of a massive missile attack, all airfields and bridges were smashed to pieces. What then?

            It is generally unclear when the ground units will get there, and the Airborne Forces can parachute anywhere and gain a foothold or strengthen those forces that will hold the defense. Or it will land in a zone where the action of air defense and enemy fighters is excluded and march to the desired line.

            It is simply impossible to break through to the rear of the enemy and land troops in modern conditions, given the level of development of air defense. This is a huge risk.

            Look, even Ukraine in the war against Donbass lost the Il-76 along with the paratroopers during the landing. One person with MANPADS within a radius of 3-4 km from the airfield can block its operation.

            In Chechnya, during landing, a Mi-26 was also hit, where there were about 200 fighters.

            By the way, I served with one of them, he was given the Order of Courage, when a turntable fell on a minefield in Khankala, he pulled out about a dozen seriously wounded soldiers.

            It's the same with an aircraft carrier - it's a mobile airfield. I wanted to strengthen them the Kuriles, I wanted Kamchatka or Chukotka. No need removed. It is necessary to attack the enemy - he pushed him to the shores of the enemy.

            Moreover, an aircraft carrier is not instead of land airfields, but in addition to them in case of need.

            And we need them. At least 5 units, 2 each for the Northern and Tizoceanic fleets and one reserve to replace the combatants during repairs.
            1. max702
              max702 April 24 2021 21: 14
              0
              Conventionally, tomorrow Japan will begin an operation against the Kuriles, Sakhalin and the Far East, we can transfer airborne units there in a few hours, and ground forces will wait for platforms from Russian Railways for a week, then load for several days and travel for a week.

              Now imagine that as a result of a massive missile attack, all airfields and bridges were smashed to pieces. what
              then?
              But when will you stop writing science fiction? Listen to the Airborne Forces, up to 30% of the budget is invested in parachute landing training, and these are real real funds that can be used for something more useful, and there is also a minus light equipment and equipment designed for parachute landing, which directly affects the low combat stability (losses) and YOU declare all THIS for some kind of such a case? No offense, but it's not even a betrayal, it's worse, it's a mistake ..
    4. businessv
      businessv April 23 2021 20: 37
      0
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Without aircraft carriers, we will have to meet the enemy on our territory.
      This is what we have done throughout our history. We are a land power, it is a well-known fact. We did not have colonies, by robbing which we would increase our well-being - this is the lot of the maritime powers. The Heartland theory is the "core", developed and voiced on January 25, 1904 by the British geographer and professor at the University of Oxford, Halford J. Mackinder, who would not agree with you - after all, it is in this core that we live. wink
    5. nonsense
      nonsense April 23 2021 22: 29
      +2
      the mobility of the Airborne Forces is greatly exaggerated. - They are too dependent on logistic support ... And just as vulnerable ((C) "one missile can smash the runway of the airfield and fuel and lubricants depots at this airfield" - this is where all the mobility of the Airborne Forces will end ...) to use the Airborne Forces (as well as the fleet with aircraft carriers, by the way) to protect their territory, this is practiced by the modern leadership of the armed forces of the Russian Federation mistake turning into stupidity(or betrayal?). It is expensive and inefficient.
      So the aircraft carrier fleet (like the Airborne Forces) is a tool for projecting power outside Russia... To the territory of a potential enemy or to ensure Russia's interests anywhere in the world. These tools are not intended for defense.
      PS: if it comes to undermining railway tracks, then it's time to start using nuclear weapons from strategic delivery vehicles ...
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan April 24 2021 11: 42
        +1
        And to use the Airborne Forces (as well as a fleet with aircraft carriers, by the way) to defend their territory is a mistake practiced by the modern leadership of the armed forces of the Russian Federation that turns into stupidity (or betrayal?). It is expensive and inefficient.


        What is stupid?

        You write nonsense. Especially with regard to the use of nuclear weapons.

        To take the same war in Georgia in 2008, if they had blown up the Russian tunnel and more than one Russian soldier of the ground units would not have got to South Ossetia. And you won't drag a self-propelled tank over the ridge.

        And no one would use nuclear weapons against Georgia.

        And here the Airborne Forces units are the only way out. The next day they were already at the war from Pskov. And how many land units would get to South Ossetia from there?

        Our artillery regiment that was in Chechnya got into this war only for 3 days !!!

        Of course, the ground units are more powerful and better armed, but we also need the Airborne Forces as a mobile reserve, and primarily for defense.

        We have everything for defense, our entire doctrine is defensive.

        And mobile airfields - aircraft carriers, we also need first of all for defense and only then show the flag far from our shores.

        Without any anti-ship missiles there, like the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" (this makes the aircraft carrier more expensive and more dangerous to operate due to the detonation of these missiles).

        An aircraft carrier should only have weapons for defense against enemy missiles and torpedoes, and anti-ship missiles should carry and use aircraft carrier aircraft, submarines, corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers that will guard this mobile airfield.
        1. nonsense
          nonsense April 24 2021 12: 02
          -2
          sad hmm, how you have everything started ... You are so inadequate that you no longer understand what you are writing. You wrote here that I am writing nonsense (indicating that the Airborne Forces is not a means of defending its territory, but a means of operating on someone else's territory and simply putting pressure on "partners" by its very existence) and immediately cite the operation of the RF Armed Forces "as proof" of my wrong outside the territory of the Russian Federation -- in Georgia.
          PS: I strongly doubt the Russian Federation's defensive military doctrine. She is with us no! Those. frankly silly (treacherous?). Even the president on TV is talking terrible nonsense about the "crossing the red line" but he still does not indicate where this very feature! He does not know for sure; in order to discover this "feature", he has to consult for a long time with his oligarchic Caudla! For example, in France, for example, there is a really defensive doctrine where everything is clearly spelled out! - The first enemy soldier on French territory means automatically a nuclear strike on the aggressor country. They don't need to look for some kind of "red line" ...
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan April 24 2021 16: 03
            0
            I'm running ?!

            You read yourself, but first carefully what they write to you.

            An example of the use of the Airborne Forces in Georgia, I have come to you to understand the difference in the response speed of the ground units and the Airborne Forces !!!!!!!!!

            I have not written anywhere that the Airborne Forces and our entire army are ONLY for defense.

            You have no idea what military doctrine is.
            1. nonsense
              nonsense April 24 2021 20: 18
              0
              laughing it's good that you are with us here - having an idea of ​​everything in the world ... and not understanding what he is writing himself ...
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan April 25 2021 01: 05
        0
        Quote: nespich
        one rocket can smash the runway of the airfield and the fuel and lubricants depots at this airfield to pieces "- this is where all the mobility of the Airborne Forces will end.

        you are not beguiled with the aircraft carrier? in the case of an aircraft carrier, yes, a hole in the deck and welcome to the base for repairs ... with the airfield, the United States was recently checked. a salvo of 2 destroyers in 70 missiles (note, 70, not 1) put the jump airfield out of action for 2 days. considering that in Russia there is not one airfield at all, then you know you will not have enough of missiles wink
        Quote: nespich
        So the aircraft carrier fleet (like the Airborne Forces) is an instrument for projecting force outside Russia. To the territory of a potential enemy or to ensure Russia's interests anywhere in the world. These tools are not intended for defense.
        PS: if it comes to undermining railway tracks, then it's time to start using nuclear weapons from strategic delivery vehicles ...

        it's hard to disagree with this. hi
        1. nonsense
          nonsense April 25 2021 12: 29
          0
          laughing (C) "Did they shoot shit?" on this airfield ... The Americans used EMNIP cluster munitions specially designed to disable the runway back in Iraq in 1991 ... And immediately the question is: are there any units at these airfields of the Russian Federation capable of repairing the runway? - IMHO no! Only in case of war, in a month, mobilized hard workers will arrive there after mobilization, who may be able to drive a bulldozer (or maybe not!) ... I think that on the railway the situation with the prompt repair of tracks is much better - a constant practice ...
    6. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 24 2021 16: 47
      0
      There is only one small problem, it is ten times cheaper to build several normal airfields near Chukotka than to build 1 aircraft carrier and aircraft for it. We will not even count all the other escort ships.

      And how, damn it, how can a trough, which needs to be prepared for a day before leaving, and which floats even with a nuclear reactor 50 km / h, while bypassing any land, can be used for operational reinforcement? What are some hours in FIG? Even from Vladivostok to Chukotka, the trough will sail for several days.

      This is not the Pacific Ocean of the Second World War, where 2 squadrons could oppose each other.

      Do you even understand that the trough has a very small amount of fuel and ammunition on board, and maybe an additional company of marines? What tasks, besides air missions, can it perform at all?
  2. vvvjak
    vvvjak April 23 2021 15: 40
    +6
    ",,, - Bring me father, an overseas monster, with a terrible face, for sexual pleasures pleasant ...
    - What the oooh ??! - roared the merchant, and was speechless.
    - Okay, father, let's go the long way. Bring me a scarlet flower from overseas countries! "(Anecdote).
    So the author went a long way laughing
  3. Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 23 2021 15: 51
    +6
    It would seem that "You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart," but the author succeeded. But why did it succeed? And why did the author decide that "the historical antagonist of the fleet in our country is railway transport"? It seemed to me that the author decided to splash out on VO his knowledge about "cars, their spans, working tanks, brake cylinders with rods", and even about the "steam-air pump, air tanks and a special driver's crane for controlling the brakes" of steam locomotives, hiding behind aircraft carriers and fleets. WHAT FOR?
    Author, well, please admit ...
    1. Mooh
      Mooh April 23 2021 16: 51
      +4
      Well, it is obvious that in the next part, the author will talk about the non-participation of the main forces of the fleet in the First World War and the railroad crisis that gripped the Empire and led to military defeats and economic problems up to the disruption of the supply of large cities, which many consider to be the reason for the February revolution.
      1. Exval
        April 23 2021 18: 14
        +2
        I like the way you think. wink Of course, this will be discussed in the next part of the article. But not only...
    2. Niko
      Niko April 23 2021 17: 09
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      It would seem that "You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart," but the author succeeded. But why did it succeed? And why did the author decide that "the historical antagonist of the fleet in our country is railway transport"? It seemed to me that the author decided to splash out on VO his knowledge about "cars, their spans, working tanks, brake cylinders with rods", and even about the "steam-air pump, air tanks and a special driver's crane for controlling the brakes" of steam locomotives, hiding behind aircraft carriers and fleets. WHAT FOR?
      Author, well, please admit ...

      I didn’t think that I’ll write something like that someday: it seems about that 160 catching submarines of the enemy was closer to the topic wassat
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 24 2021 16: 48
        -1
        Even the Tu-160 will do more useful against submarines than an aircraft carrier. All jokes, but launching rockets from it at land ships is what the Americans are doing with its direct counterpart.
  4. Arkon
    Arkon April 23 2021 15: 58
    +1
    I'm already looking forward to continuing. smile
  5. sleeve
    sleeve April 23 2021 16: 04
    -1
    The article is so nice. And a lot has been written, and the words are clever and irrelevant, well, as it should be ... And what does all this have to do with it? History, history, history. And, let's say, in an applied presentation ("the revolutionary situation of 1881", "qualification as the reason for the defeat in the naval war of 1904-05"). Let's make it easier. International Doctrine-Naval Doctrine. Loot. The goal must justify the investment and use of funds. That's all. You need to talk around this.
  6. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv April 23 2021 16: 31
    +1
    I didn't understand something:
    We transport aircraft carriers by rail,
    Or
    We start locomotives from aircraft carriers ???

    I will assume that the second, since the thrust of the catapults will be given by the brake cylinders with rods.

    And what to do with ... brake conductors?
    request

    ............
    Valery, if you are talking about the effectiveness of the ruble invested in various sectors of economic activity for the welfare and protection of the country, then ... maybe this is exactly what it is worth saying?
    wink
    1. max702
      max702 April 23 2021 17: 17
      +3
      The author hints that if you mistakenly invest in one, then you will underfund another, much more important, and now Koscheev's death will come from there.
    2. moody
      moody April 25 2021 13: 34
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      We transport aircraft carriers by rail,
      Or
      We start locomotives from aircraft carriers ???
      I will assume that the second, since the thrust of the catapults will be given by the brake cylinders with rods.
      And what to do with ... brake conductors?


      How where? For the cables of the locomotive finishers, of course, for each cable, a pair.
      Otherwise, the locomotives will sit down.
  7. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 23 2021 17: 02
    +1
    The author is an "railroad worker" (exactly! - not a "Railroad worker", ... well, almost a Railroad worker) laughing )
    And he promised yes :
    Not only about aircraft carriers: historical reflections on one discussion
    and I must say - he kept his promise: about the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS - not a word !!! yes
    Although in the course of WWI the Russian imperial fleet already had an "Eagle" - the prototype of future aircraft carriers ...
    And the "iron road builder" - about the native: about the cars and the brakes ... Well, in general, what is the soul, what is dearer and more expensive ... but not about aircraft carriers .... as stated in the poster of the article! laughing
    Everything is according to old Freud.
    1. Niko
      Niko April 23 2021 17: 11
      -2
      Quote: BoA KAA
      The author is an "railroad worker" (exactly! - not a "Railroad worker", ... well, almost a Railroad worker) laughing )
      And he promised yes :
      Not only about aircraft carriers: historical reflections on one discussion
      and I must say - he kept his promise: about the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS - not a word !!! yes
      Although in the course of WWI the Russian imperial fleet already had an "Eagle" - the prototype of future aircraft carriers ...
      And the "iron road builder" - about the native: about the cars and the brakes ... Well, in general, what is the soul, what is dearer and more expensive ... but not about aircraft carriers .... as stated in the poster of the article! laughing
      Everything is according to old Freud.

      But I haven't laughed like that for a long time laughing
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 24 2021 16: 49
      0
      By the end of WWI, aircraft carriers were no longer needed in the Baltic, since everything began to break through from the coast.
  8. Silhouette
    Silhouette April 23 2021 17: 04
    0
    Historical reflections, you say? ... Ha! .. I made the old man laugh ... The second part of the reflections is not necessary. And these were useless.
    1. Niko
      Niko April 23 2021 17: 18
      -3
      Quote: Silhouette
      Historical reflections, you say? ... Ha! .. I made the old man laugh ... The second part of the reflections is not necessary. And these were useless.

      I do not agree, I will remember these brakes in the cars for a long time laughingit's a hit.
  9. Niko
    Niko April 23 2021 17: 13
    0
    Many thanks to the author, laughter prolongs life. I remembered from a good film: "Savva, what have you gotten with the shtikheli?"
  10. Basarev
    Basarev April 23 2021 17: 22
    -1
    I think that road glands are a complete land analogue of sea communications and therefore are much more important for Russia - we have only one sensible sea communication, this is the Northern Sea Route. And I suspect that a good railway line in the north is quite capable of overshadowing the Northern Sea Route in terms of cargo turnover. That is, it is necessary not to spread manilovism about aircraft carriers, but to build and build pieces of iron so that you can get to any corner by land. And not like now - almost a third of the country only by air. And to protect these paths, build special trains. A strategic train, the successor of the Well done, a train with Gauges and even an artillery train, with a railway version of the AK-130. And the fleet ... The ocean is completely lost, so it would be wiser to build just a strong coastal fleet. Not to allow Crimean, not to allow Port Arthur and not to allow Normandy - for the country it is much more useful than the message about the campaigns on Norfolk.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2021 19: 21
      +5
      Quote: Basarev
      I think that road glands are a complete land analogue of sea communications and therefore are much more important for Russia.

      Alas, this is most reminiscent of the reasoning that the heart is a complete analogue of the kidney, and, of course, the kidneys are of much greater importance for the body.
      So, for reference, countries with a powerful navy were distinguished by a developed railway network.
      Quote: Basarev
      And I suspect that a good railway line in the north is quite capable of overshadowing the Northern Sea Route in terms of cargo turnover.

      Which speaks absolutely not in favor of your knowledge of transport. Water transport is fundamentally cheaper than rail transport.
      1. businessv
        businessv April 23 2021 23: 09
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Which speaks absolutely not in favor of your knowledge of transport. Water transport is fundamentally cheaper than rail transport.
        Andrey, you mean intercontinental communication, which is certainly necessary. Container carriers transport incomparably more cargo in one step than a railway train. The largest to date is the 400m MSC Gülsün (23 TEU), built by Samsung Heavy Industries. Almost 756 containers! But these courts cannot be used inside our country, and this is exactly what was said in the article. I repeat, but
        The Heartland theory is the "core", developed and voiced on January 25, 1904 by the British geographer and professor at the University of Oxford Halford J. Mackinder.
        So he called the territories where we live today and they are full of not only unused, but even undiscovered resources! We have to protect them and I think the AUG has a slightly different purpose.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 24 2021 10: 39
          0
          Quote: businessv
          But these courts cannot be used inside our country.

          Just - very much even apply. The Northern Sea Route and the sea routes to Vladivostok save a lot on logistics
          Quote: businessv
          So he called the territories in which we live today, and they are full of not so much unused, but even undiscovered resources! We must protect them

          Vadim, we are threatened, including from the sea
          1. businessv
            businessv April 24 2021 11: 18
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Vadim, we are threatened, including from the sea
            Greetings, Andrey! I do not deny threats from the sea, colleague, but aircraft carriers cannot be used to protect the shores. The Northern Sea Route is also extremely important for us and today it brings good dividends, I talked about logistics inside the country, where water, as a delivery route, can be used very limitedly, and you first need to deliver the cargo to it. The author correctly noted that many copies have been broken on the topic of aircraft carriers, but we will definitely not deal with this with you! drinks
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 25 2021 09: 42
              +1
              Quote: businessv
              I do not deny threats from the sea, colleague, but aircraft carriers cannot be used to protect the shores.

              How to apply :))))
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 24 2021 16: 59
            +1
            The threat from the sea is fully counteracted by the aviation and the coastal defense fleet. For some reason, one simple thing does not fit into your head for naval lovers, missiles, which have absolutely monstrous destructive power and range, do not require huge artillery platforms for their use, and ships on which these platforms can be installed. And this means that a coastal missile system or a ship, like the Karakurt, can completely neutralize an Arleigh Burke with just one hit from a distance of a couple of hundred kilometers, while at the same time they are not comparable with the Burke in price.

            The Northern Sea Route has one feature because of which it is not used so intensively, it can only be navigated by icebreakers, and it is almost impossible to attack it with a fleet. Is that nuclear submarines.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 25 2021 09: 45
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              The threat from the sea is fully counteracted by the aviation and the coastal defense fleet.

              Yes, of course :)))))) If this coastal defense fleet includes AB.
              Quote: EvilLion
              For some reason, one simple thing does not fit into the head of your fleet lovers, missiles, which have absolutely monstrous destructive power and range, do not require huge artillery platforms for their use.

              We just know that a submarine cannot be sunk by a missile. And we know that the use of long-range missiles is a very complex process that requires serious support.
              Quote: EvilLion
              And this means that a coastal missile system or a ship, like the Karakurt, can completely neutralize any Arlie Burke with just one hit from a distance of a couple of hundred kilometers

              All that remains is to somehow convince this Arly to poke 200 km to the shore ...
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su April 26 2021 08: 47
          0
          Quote: businessv
          So he called the territories where we live today and they are full of not only unused, but even undiscovered resources!

          What resources are there so full that they are not even explored?
          1. businessv
            businessv April 26 2021 12: 09
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            What resources are there so full that they are not even explored?
            Natural resources, what else! laughing Read to get started: https://goo-gl.ru/pS8D6
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su April 26 2021 12: 23
              0
              You, Mr. businessman, do not show me the alphabet, read it yourself laughing

              Better specifically tell us where we can find something like that? Especially what has not yet been explored. And the fact is that most of the latest intelligence services are simply an entrance ticket to the use of Soviet discoveries.
              1. businessv
                businessv April 26 2021 14: 38
                0
                Quote: bot.su
                Better specifically tell us where we can find something like that?
                Mr. nerd, do you think I can tell you "something like that", and even more "concretely", if, in fact, geo-prospecting is not being carried out ?! The ABC will not hurt you in this matter! You were right to say that the basic data is based on the data of the Union. Nobody bothered spending money on an unknown result. According to the geological study of the USSR, approx. 60% resources. For this, it is necessary to carry out exploration work, which is expensive. Read: https://goo-gl.ru/19eKQ If you have any questions, please contact! wink
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su April 26 2021 15: 50
                  0
                  Quote: businessv
                  Mr. nerd

                  .su - I explain for those who took the exam, the domain of the Soviet Union. So comrade nerd. The gentlemen, as you know, are all in Paris, and the hosts are in London.

                  Quote: businessv
                  what do you think, can I tell you "something like that", and even more "concretely"

                  you can not, because not in the subject. The layman and the student in you are given the words "geo-prospecting", "master data is based on data" and "exploration work". Correctly "geological prospecting" or "geological prospecting"; "modern prospecting works are carried out according to the data of prospecting works of the Soviet era." The phrase "prospecting work" is now firmly established for the branch of geology, far from mineral resources, but amateurs and correspondents say the same about geological prospecting.
                  Quote: businessv
                  According to the geological study of the USSR, approx. 60% resources.

                  What year is the data for? wink

                  Quote: businessv
                  If you have any questions, please contact!

                  Yes, I can read Wikipedia without you laughing
                  1. businessv
                    businessv April 27 2021 23: 18
                    0
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Yes, I can read Wikipedia without you

                    Well, if you can, read on, why are you scribbling useless nonsense? I wrote you an answer, not an essay, so your rhetoric regarding the style of writing my post and its definitions is just demagoguery. You all, without exception, understood what I wrote to you. Don't bother yourself with an answer, professional fellow nerd! Best wishes to you! hi
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 24 2021 16: 52
        0
        If you are talking about the United States, then they are simply much richer, and they did not have such a powerful ground army.

        Water transport is fundamentally cheaper than rail transport.


        The problem with water transport is that it is water transport, and people live on land.
  11. Exval
    April 23 2021 17: 27
    +1
    Quote: Arkon
    I'm already looking forward to continuing. smile

    Thank you. I hope that soon your expectation will come true.
    1. Anzhey V.
      Anzhey V. April 23 2021 17: 54
      +4
      Excellent article, comrade!

      Do not pay attention to the raging Moremans, they have any thought, at least somehow challenging the superiority of the ships, causes hysteria and aggression)
      1. Exval
        April 23 2021 18: 11
        +1
        Thank you colleague
  12. Exval
    April 23 2021 17: 29
    +2
    Quote: max702
    Quote: Niko
    "Will they make it?" - judging by the direction of the article: they will get there by a steam locomotive, the main thing is that the automatic brakes work well

    The author hints that there are more chances to reach the land than by sea .. This is with regards to the article, then there were no other types of transport and the delivery of destructive weapons .. Now the picture has changed somewhat and it is possible to punish not obedient Zusul not only with gunboat diplomacy ..

    Do not be ahead of the events: after all, the first part deals with the events before the start of WWI. How things stand now will be shown later.
  13. Exval
    April 23 2021 17: 31
    +1
    Quote: Bez 310
    It would seem that "You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart," but the author succeeded. But why did it succeed? And why did the author decide that "the historical antagonist of the fleet in our country is railway transport"? It seemed to me that the author decided to splash out on VO his knowledge about "cars, their spans, working tanks, brake cylinders with rods", and even about the "steam-air pump, air tanks and a special driver's crane for controlling the brakes" of steam locomotives, hiding behind aircraft carriers and fleets. WHAT FOR?
    Author, well, please admit ...

    Be patient. Perhaps, from the subsequent parts, the author's thought will become more transparent.
  14. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 23 2021 17: 34
    +2
    how cleverly he pinned the sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses by comparing their idol with .... a railway carriage, and the carriage turned out to be more important .... it is clear that Russian aircraft carriers do not need this weapon of aggression against distant and weak countries, it is necessary to develop nuclear submarines and coastal fleets
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 23 2021 19: 22
      +1
      the question is more stupid - AB and the fleet before them were needed for overseas possessions - komunikatsy. the geography of England and Italy, and others just a little bit different from the Eurasian - from Russia.
      I distort - to piss off the Moremans. The fleet for the WB is the protection of its Ministry of Railways (sea), a land rich in gifts far beyond the sea. if it were on a dry road, we would have developed the steam locomotives by 500% and those air brakes.
      not so glaciers passed in the area of ​​the British Isles and earthquakes with volcanoes, but the Angles use what they can.
      WE HAVE A HUGE DRY SPACE WITH THE WEALTH OF THE BOTTOM AND FAR FROM THEM SEA-OCEANS.
      FAT POINT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF AVIANOSTSEV.-

      you give 10 Av for 100 VI.
      haha
  15. Exval
    April 23 2021 17: 46
    +2
    Quote: Aleks tv
    I didn't understand something:
    We transport aircraft carriers by rail,
    Or
    We start locomotives from aircraft carriers ???

    I will assume that the second, since the thrust of the catapults will be given by the brake cylinders with rods.

    And what to do with ... brake conductors?
    request

    ............
    Valery, if you are talking about the effectiveness of the ruble invested in various sectors of economic activity for the welfare and protection of the country, then ... maybe this is exactly what it is worth saying?
    wink

    No, my idea is somewhat different. I hope that after the publication of the following parts of the article, it will become more transparent, incl. be patient.
  16. dgonni
    dgonni April 23 2021 18: 26
    +1
    So palliative!
    The main message is not correct in the article. This is the exclusion of economy and logistics from the general formula!
    Without the economy and the accompanying logistics, there could be no Constantinople and the Bosphorus.
    The level of the fleet and its capabilities are shaped by the economy and developed logistics. If a business does not have over many ships, then in wartime one cannot rely on the possibility of delivering reserves and supplies in wartime!
    You can have a strong fleet. But he has no chance without supplies.
    So the little man’s article is past reality.
    the Americans at one time sat behind a puddle and did not protrude anywhere until, in fact, they had not mastered their entire territory!
    And after they built up their economies in terms of production and created a huge merchant fleet, which by the way was easily mobilized and provided huge volumes of transportation. From that moment on, they started playing international politics!
    That, however, was repeated by the USSR fleet in the 70s!
  17. businessv
    businessv April 23 2021 20: 24
    +2
    let's talk in the second part of the article.
    Valery, thanks for the article, read it with pleasure. We are waiting for the second part, for which I wish you inspiration! good
    1. Exval
      April 23 2021 21: 10
      +2
      Thank you, Vadim. I will try to meet expectations
  18. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle April 23 2021 21: 00
    +3
    I read it with interest, while there is nothing to criticize, the author pauses. By the way, in school years, we were especially stupid, called ... Westinghouse! It turns out that this is what it is, Westinghouse's brake is to blame, but I did not know about him then.
    1. Exval
      April 23 2021 21: 11
      +3
      Well, not all the same dreadnoughts call themselves ... wink
  19. Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 24 2021 01: 21
    -1
    Shortest content.
    1. Magically sticking a flag into the shore gives 1500 AA defense and 5100 warhead power to any trough nearby. Therefore, Kamchatka, the distance to which from Vladivostok is greater than from London to Iceland, must be protected from AUG by corvettes.
    2. The Baltic and especially the Pacific and the fleet were created to capture Constantinople. And only the aggressive plans of the tsarism did not allow the Goeben to be sunk by gunboats.
    3. A quarter of the state budget of the Republic of Ingushetia was secretly spent on the fleet. Obviously, the budget was SECRETLY replenished with Polubotka gold, and the Tunguska meteorite is Witte's emotional explosion.
    4. History is a Moscow pseudoscience, all sources are forged and only the author knows the terrible truth (tm).
    1. agond
      agond April 24 2021 10: 12
      +1
      The fact that the railways have definitely been and remain one of the main components of the country's defense capability, everyone agrees with this, and, say, the need for aircraft carriers raises doubts among many ...
      but let's continue the analogy - railways and icebreakers, suppose the country built icebreakers very limitedly, but it intensively built railways along the coast of the northern seas, and so they built, built and finally built from Severodvinsk to Kamchatka if trains with missiles can be rolled along this road, then it is possible It would be possible to build a smaller number of submarine missile carriers and there would be no need to launch missiles from under the ice. It turns out that the alternative is, as it were, possible, although it is not known whether, in principle, it is possible to lay railway tracks in the tundra.
  20. Vladimir Vitalin
    Vladimir Vitalin April 24 2021 15: 20
    +1
    After reading the article, a persistent thought arises that the efforts of geneticists to cross the "hedgehog and the snake" have been crowned with success and we can use 1.5 meters of live barbed wire in the economy ... In the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, we all lost (Ushakov and others do not count ), and Admiral Makarov
    the incompetent coward who destroyed the Black Sea squadron and surrendered Sevastopol ... The fleet destroyed the railways, and the lack of advanced logistics destroyed Russia ...
    1. agond
      agond April 24 2021 17: 52
      0
      Quote: agond
      analogies - railways and icebreakers

      They plan to build the northern latitudinal route, the first stage of 700 km 250 billion rubles, (there will be another 800 km to Dudinka) and two icebreakers of the Leader project (for year-round navigation) are being built for 120 billion rubles, (there will be 4 in the series). that is, the price of 1500 km of latitudinal passage is equal to 4 icebreakers, and let's say the straight distance between Dudinka and Magadan is 3100 km, that is, 4500 km of the northern railway in the current price ratio can be equated to 8-10 icebreakers, I don’t presume to judge a lot or a little , but nevertheless I wonder how much these 4.5 or 5 thousand km will cost if you count in aircraft carriers
  21. moody
    moody April 25 2021 14: 31
    +1
    Our public, as a rule, is poorly aware of the historical path that the navies have traveled in their development. This is not surprising for a country whose military victories have been won over the past two and a half centuries, almost exclusively on land.


    2021-250 = 1771
    A new discovery for our public: according to a new version of the historical path, Ushakov and Senyavin were generals of infantry.
    1. Exval
      April 25 2021 19: 54
      0
      I agree - an incorrect phrase. My thought was that with the onset of the era, the Russian fleet practically did not win victories.
      1. agond
        agond April 26 2021 22: 16
        0
        If the author raised the topic of the importance of railways, I will add two more kopecks along the northern latitudinal course, as is known in the north in the tundra soils are heaving, contain a lot of ice which in places began to melt vigorously, which of course will complicate the construction of a railway or even make it impossible, but there is a simple the exit, the foundation-base of the railway can be made floating, in general this is when the volume of the foundation structure is lighter than the same volume of soil, that is, if an empty barrel or cistern is buried in a swamp or quicksand, it will float up and this property can be used in the construction of railway in the tundra. and quite inexpensively, schematically, on the leveled surface of the tundra, under the rails, lay empty sea containers with a height of 2.6m, width 2.45m, length 6m, volume 33 m3, price per unit 150000rb, 400 units worth 60 million rubles per kilometer , accordingly, 1000 km will take 400000 pieces worth 60 billion rubles, and the price of the icebreaker Leader is set at 120 billion rubles, which means that this money may be enough to pack 2 thousand km in containers, and as we remember, they are planning a series of 4 icebreakers, which corresponds to 8 thousand km, in other words, on containers you can put rails along the coast of the northern seas from Severodvinsk to the Bering Strait, for a single-track road it should definitely be enough. moreover, the melting of permafrost will have a minimal impact on the road safety.
      2. moody
        moody April 26 2021 22: 56
        0
        My thought was that with the onset of the era, the Russian fleet practically did not win victories.


        Major victories on the scale of Chesma / Sinop? Perhaps, it may be partly because after the Russo-Japanese war the fleet did not participate in such major battles. For example, in the First World War, the Russian fleet did not have a battle of the scale of the LK squadron to the LK squadron. And in smaller-scale clashes, not everything is so sad.
        1. Exval
          April 28 2021 15: 20
          0
          I have a proposal for you: let's wait until the next parts of the article are published - and then we will return to this question, ok? I am just planning to touch upon the aspect you touched upon.
          1. moody
            moody April 29 2021 00: 25
            +1
            No problem. It will be interesting to read the sequel ..