Military Review

End of the era of armored monsters

107
End of the era of armored monsters

In 1906, a new type of battleship "Dreadnought" was completed, with a displacement of 21 thousand tons and with 305 10 mm guns. The ship, both in size (160x25 m) and in armament, seemed like a monster, against the background of which all the other battleships of the world were lost. Only eight years later, this same "Dreadnought" was an obsolete little ship with extremely weak artillery. And in just eight years, Britain built 26 battleships just for itself. The displacement of the latter reached 33 tons, dimensions - 000x197 m, and the caliber of guns - 27 mm.


Germany followed the same path - starting in 1909, 16 battleships were built in six years. In the USA they tried to keep up and built 10 monsters, France - 4 battleships, Italy - 4 battleships, Russia - 4 battleships, Japan - 2 battleships, and even Austria-Hungary - 4 battleships did not stand aside. Thus, in eight years, the leading countries of the world received 70 armored monsters - this despite the fact that the battleships of the previous era did not disappear anywhere. And that's not all - in addition to battleships, there were also battle cruisers, even bigger in size, only faster and worse protected. They were built 10 in Britain, 5 in Germany, 2 in Japan. As a result, 86 armored monsters, plus a horde of armored and also monsters, but of the previous generation.

The war did not stop the process, and by its end there were more ships. So, Great Britain, despite the losses, ended the war with 33 battleships and 9 battle cruisers. There is no point in talking about Germany and Austria-Hungary, the losers lost everything, but the United States built 17 battleships. Japan was not far behind - 8 battleships and 4 battle cruisers by 1921. The French and those, weakened by the war, mastered the construction of 7 ships, the Italians - 6. Russia swung at 8 battleships and 4 battle cruisers, but one battleship and all cruisers were cut unfinished as a result of the Civil War, and the Black Sea battleships were killed - one from an explosion, one from obscene world, the third was hijacked by the whites. Another one burned out in the Baltic ...

You have to understand - apart from battleships, other ships have not gone anywhere, moreover, on the way from the Dreadnought to the Versailles world, dogs in the form of cruisers, destroyers, submarines and other things have grown in size and quantity. The role of the fleets in the war was, however, not that heroic - the German fleet did not break the blockade of the British, did not defeat the Grand Fleet, did not stop Britain's maritime trade, and did not even break through to St. Petersburg, but rebelled to its fullest in 1918. The British, however, provided a long-range blockade of the enemy, but could not defeat the Hochseeflotte, and could not suppress the Russian revolution, and in general could not. The Russian fleet, on the other hand, became famous for several things - coastal defense battleships (which have no analogues, as they would say now), the murders of their officers and the role of the locomotive of anarchy in the country. Again, our RIF (Russian and imperial) fought well, but for some reason, with exceptionally small or outdated ships. Heroic battles - destroyers and old cruisers, Baltic "Varyag" and "Koreets" - gunboats, victory in a linear battle - old EBR, defense of the Gulf of Riga - they are the same. It seems that we had battleships, that we didn’t ... Without them it would have been better, the victims of the anarchist sailors would not let us lie.

With such a peculiar experience, it would seem that it's time to think and slow down, since new means of war at sea are massively appearing - submarines, aircraft (and the first aircraft carriers), torpedo boats ... weapons among the surviving superpowers, and even monstrous ships threatened to end up on the stocks.

And the start of the transition of calibers beyond common sense was given by the British back in the years of the Great War, when Jackie Fischer thought of a light battle cruiser with 4 main guns of only 457 mm. For the so-called Baltic project, Fischer set up different things:

“These monitors were of an outlandish type. This had two 14-inch guns in the turret in the bow and an anti-mine attachment sticking out along the hull like crinoline frills. She protected him from torpedo attacks, but reduced the maximum speed to 6 knots. They were originally built by Lord Fisher as part of fleetintended for operations in the Baltic Sea, but God knows what they would have done there if they got there, and I doubt if Fischer himself knew that. Although the Baltic project never materialized, it bears responsibility for the waste of money and labor. In addition to monitors, expensive anomalies like Furies and Glories were also intended for this purpose. "

For this, instead of handing over the overworked lord to specialists with kind and a little tired eyes, he was sent into honorary retirement. Be that as it may, the groundwork was given, and then it went. After Fischer, the British planned as many as four "Hoods", quite traditional, four battle cruisers with a main caliber 406 mm in three three-gun turrets and battleships of type 3 already with 457 mm guns. But the British plans pale in comparison to the Japanese and American ones. All the same, the pitiful four battleships and 8 battle cruisers are about nothing.

The Japanese planned to build 16 battleships - 8 battleships and 8 battle cruisers, apparently similar to the 6 + 6 period of the Russian-Japanese period. Battleships of the "Tosa" type were supposed to reach a displacement of 45 tons, a speed of 000 knots, and an armament of 27 guns with a caliber of 10 mm. Then the battleships "Kii" were planned, with a displacement of already under 410 tons, and a length of 50 meters. The Japanese admirals saw battle cruisers with about the same monsters and with the same artillery, only a little faster and more autonomous.

The Americans approached the matter with a truly American scale - they responded to 8 + 8 with the law on the fleet, within which the US Navy was supposed to be able to fight simultaneously with the British and Japanese. It was laid down (in addition to the already practically built four battleships with a 406 mm GK) six battleships of the Lexington type with a length of 260 meters and a GK 3x3 406 mm. Dreams of technocrats went further, admirals and designers started talking about calibers 480 and even 500 mm.

Fortunately, the madness was stopped and an agreement was reached, and from all this "splendor" one "Hood" was embodied in metal in Britain, in whose company two battleships were built within the framework of the Washington restrictions (35 tons and 000 mm of main battery), three battleships of the " Colorado "in the United States, and two types of" Nagato "in Japan. The world was lucky, until the advent of His Majesty the aircraft carrier was only a few years away, and Her Majesty the submarine was already reigning. And the only thing that shone on the huge dinosaurs in World War II was the fate of Tirpitz at best, and at worst the fate of Yamato or Prince of Wales.

The hysteria over useless iron monsters was slowed down for 10 years. And before the start of World War II, they did not reach perversion, well, except for the Japanese, who, of course, created a wonder of the world:

"There are three biggest and most useless things in the world: the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato."

But a miracle is useless, and according to Admiral Yamamoto:

“These ships are reminiscent of the calligraphic religious scrolls that old people hang in their homes. They have not proven their worth. It's just a matter of faith, not reality. "

And what echoes well another quote about the value of battleships in the post-war period in general:

"A battleship was for many years to admirals what a cathedral was to bishops."

The era of battleships is gone, and those who spent a minimum of money on them and did not actually reach the monsters with a displacement far beyond 200 tons and 460 millimeter guns were lucky.
Author:
Photos used:
wikipedia.org
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 6 September 2021 04: 11
    +29
    "instead of handing over the overworked lord to specialists with kind and a little tired eyes,"

    Of course, today, after a hundred years from the time of the events described, it is good to be smart and you can afford boorish amicability in relation to "Jackie" Fisher. But a person of this magnitude in military shipbuilding and other naval affairs must still be well looked for in world military history.

    Sir John Arbuthnot "Jackie" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone

    Being an admiral of the Royal British Navy, he had a great influence on the tactics, strategy, development and material and technical equipment of the Royal Navy.
    Born in 1841, Knight (1894), Baron (1909). In service (1854), officer (1860), rear admiral (1890), vice admiral (1896), admiral (1902) and admiral of the British fleet (1905).
    Participated in the Crimean (1853-1856) and Anglo-Chinese (1859-1860) wars, the Egyptian expedition (1882). Director of the Department of Naval Artillery (1886-1891). Admiral-Superintendent of Portsmouth Docks (1891). 3rd Lord of the Admiralty (1892-1897).
    Commander-in-Chief of the North American and West Indies Station (1897-1899). Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet (1899-1902). Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth (1903-1904). First sea lord from October 20, 1904 to January 25, 1910 and in 1914-1915.
    He was the founder of the concept of design and combat use of dreadnoughts, battle cruisers, he was a supporter of the development of submarine and aircraft-carrying warships. Thanks to him, by the summer of 1914, the British navy was fully converted to liquid fuel.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 6 September 2021 04: 44
      +6
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Participated in the Crimean (1853-1856)

      This is how he participated, being 1841. birth? belay
      1. SERGE ANT
        SERGE ANT 6 September 2021 06: 04
        +25
        He officially entered the Royal Navy on July 13, 1854 at the age of 13.
        aboard Nelson's former flagship, Victory, in Portsmouth. On July 29, he was assigned to HMS Calcutta, an old battleship with a crew of 700 and discipline enforced by "the stubborn Captain Stopford strictly." Fischer fainted when he witnessed the spanking of eight people on his first day.
        "Calcutta" participated in the blockade of Russian ports in the Gulf of Finland during the Crimean War, which gave Fischer the right to the "Baltic Medal"
        “War has no rules. The essence of war is violence. Self-restraint in war is idiocy. Hit first, hit hard, hit without respite. " Admiral Fisher
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 6 September 2021 11: 59
        +3
        In theory, he participated, as did the opium with the Chinese.
    2. 27091965
      27091965 6 September 2021 13: 15
      +6
      Dear Alexander, thank you for your interesting comment.

      Quote: A. Privalov
      He was the founder of the concept of design and combat use of dreadnoughts, battle cruisers,


      I think that D. Fischer cannot be called the founder of the theory of high-speed armored ships armed with large-caliber guns. This theory was developed by the Italian admiral Giovanni Bettolo, further developed by the Italian Domenico Bonamico, he has already concretized it. This is a detachment of armored, high-speed cruisers armed with the largest possible main battery guns, these are the Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruisers, they had to act as a detachment as a separate unit and as a squadron to support the battleships in battle. This theory was used in Japan and England. D. Fischer brought it to its logical conclusion, but this does not diminish his merits. But with this it is necessary to take into account the technical progress that has occurred in the 25 years since the appearance of this theory.
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 6 September 2021 13: 22
        +6
        Quote: 27091965i
        I think that D. Fischer cannot be called the founder of the theory of high-speed armored ships armed with large-caliber guns. This theory was developed ...

        You are certainly right. I exaggerated Fischer's accomplishments a little.
        By the way, I already wrote about him and about the construction of the Dreadnought several years ago on the pages of VO in my article "His Majesty's Ship" Dreadnought "and prankers of the 1910 model.

        hi
    3. Borisych
      Borisych 7 September 2021 21: 02
      +1
      I support that Fischer is a much more prominent Briton than Winnie Churchill.
    4. Living7111972
      Living7111972 8 September 2021 23: 11
      0
      The son of a fisherman ...
  2. Xlor
    Xlor 6 September 2021 04: 24
    +1
    The era of battleships is gone, and those who spent a minimum of money on them and did not actually reach the monsters far beyond 200 tons and 460 millimeter guns were lucky.

    These monsters have been building for almost 50 years. They threw in them so much time and money that it was possible to build the most modern fleet and army on them! This reminds me of the ending of an anecdote where "on the fourth day Zorkiy Sokol noticed that the prison where he was imprisoned did not have a fourth wall"
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 6 September 2021 09: 42
      +8
      Quote: Xlor
      The era of battleships is gone, and those who spent a minimum of money on them and did not actually reach the monsters far beyond 200 tons and 460 millimeter guns were lucky.

      These monsters have been building for almost 50 years. They threw in them so much time and money that it was possible to build the most modern fleet and army on them! This reminds me of the ending of an anecdote where "on the fourth day Zorkiy Sokol noticed that the prison where he was imprisoned did not have a fourth wall"

      For England, for example, the Fleet was vital. To talk about the obsolescence of Yamato, Tirpitz and Prince of Wales is incorrect, because they were not given air cover. Well, in general, to send single ships of this kind
      1. Xlor
        Xlor 6 September 2021 11: 18
        -3
        For England, for example, the Navy was vital
        To maintain order in the colonies, yes, it is necessary.
        But for a war with serious states - battleships and heavy cruisers - just money down the drain ...

        talking about the obsolescence of Yamato, Tirpitz and Prince of Wells is incorrect, because they were not given air cover
        These were, of course, powerful ships, but with the advent of submarines and aviation, they simply turned into some kind of anachronism. Moreover, even with their aviation cover, what could these ships do in WWII? How to change the balance of power at sea? Is that to contain the same, unnecessary battleships and cruisers ...
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 6 September 2021 12: 17
          +5
          Quote: Xlor
          For England, for example, the Navy was vital
          To maintain order in the colonies, yes, it is necessary.
          But for a war with serious states - battleships and heavy cruisers - just money down the drain ...

          talking about the obsolescence of Yamato, Tirpitz and Prince of Wells is incorrect, because they were not given air cover
          These were, of course, powerful ships, but with the advent of submarines and aviation, they simply turned into some kind of anachronism. Moreover, even with their aviation cover, what could these ships do in WWII? How to change the balance of power at sea? Is that to contain the same, unnecessary battleships and cruisers ...

          In WWI, the British fleet carried out a blockade of Germany. How do you imagine the blockade if Germany built battleships and England did not? Naturally, each subsequent series of ships was more powerful. Who wrote there "who owns the sea owns the world"?
  3. mmaxx
    mmaxx 6 September 2021 04: 46
    +12
    The meaning of all this writing is simple: we are all going to die, why all this vanity of life.
    If everything was so simple ....
    1. max702
      max702 6 September 2021 12: 01
      -2
      Quote: mmaxx
      The meaning of all this writing is simple: we are all going to die, why all this vanity of life.
      If only everything were so simple ...

      No this is the most current AUG hints
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 6 September 2021 17: 18
        0
        Battleships yesterday, aircraft carriers today ... Something else tomorrow.
        Only at least the clubs were not canceled. Otherwise, there will be nothing to defend with. Look, the Neanderthals were killed. And those, they say, were smart.
  4. shinobi
    shinobi 6 September 2021 05: 15
    +14
    In general, until the prospects for aviation became clear, this direction of development was fully justified for the colonial powers. Submarines of that period had a very limited range of use. Torpedo boats are generally a coastal zone, and torpedoes are melee weapons in comparison with main battery guns. the history of aircraft carriers. Before the advent of anti-ship missiles, there was no one cooler. With an increase in the range and an increase in the accuracy of anti-ship missiles, aircraft carriers will begin to decrease in size and gradually become history.
    1. Luminman
      Luminman 6 September 2021 06: 25
      +1
      In general, until the prospects for aviation became clear, this direction of development was fully justified.

      The prospects for aviation were already outlined in WWI, and battleships and heavy cruisers still continued to build
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 6 September 2021 09: 49
        -3
        Quote: Luminman
        In general, until the prospects for aviation became clear, this direction of development was fully justified.

        The prospects for aviation were already outlined in WWI, and battleships and heavy cruisers still continued to build

        The British in the northern and Mediterranean theaters carried aircraft carriers in squadrons, unlike the Germans, the Italians. If all the planes had been raised in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would hardly have returned to the bases, and such a pogrom would not have happened.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 September 2021 14: 56
          +9
          Quote: Pilat2009
          The British in the northern and Mediterranean theaters carried aircraft carriers in squadrons, in contrast to the Germans and the Italians.

          And the British had no choice - their squadron AB had to provide the LK with the possibility of a battle with a faster enemy. Because before the Kings entered service, there was only one ship for the entire RN, capable not only of developing more than 23-24 knots, but also theoretically cope with the one it caught up with - the Mighty Hood. The rest were either too slow-moving ("Nelsons", "Queens" and "R"), or poorly protected and armed ("Perestroika" with "Alteration"). And in order to enable the bulk of the LC to engage in an artillery battle, it was necessary either to increase their speed (complete modernization is an extremely costly process, see the modernization of the LCR), or to hobble the enemy. It was here that the AV entered the scene, killing three birds with one stone at once, they provided reconnaissance to the linear forces and "knocking down the course" of the enemy's LK, as well as some kind of air defense. Classics - Matapan, Bismarck hunt and Tirpitz hunt during Sport Palace.
          Quote: Pilat2009
          if all the planes were lifted in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would hardly have returned to the bases, and there would not have been such a pogrom.

          "Because there was no nail in the forge". ©
          In Pearl Harbor, it was only necessary to change the schedule of the radar and personnel on duty at the Joint Air Defense Control Center - to organize a shift breakfast and the work of radar calculations and the Center's duty shift until 09:00. smile
          1. frog
            frog 6 September 2021 18: 11
            +3
            "Because there was no nail in the forge." ©
            In Pearl Harbor, it was only necessary to change the schedule of the radar and personnel on duty at the Joint Air Defense Control Center - to organize a shift breakfast and the work of radar calculations and the Center's duty shift until 09:00.

            Alternatively, it would be nice not to send notices of the beginning of the war by ordinary telegraph and deliver them by a postman on a bicycle. It is possible that the American Pechkin is cooler than ours, but ..... I read somewhere about previous events, everything was curious there .....
      2. shinobi
        shinobi 6 September 2021 18: 20
        +1
        E-eh, comrade, battleships of that time and modern ones are completely different phenomena, both in terms of armor and in terms of armament.
      3. Siberian54
        Siberian54 9 September 2021 12: 47
        +1
        Yes, we will also build ... no matter how expensive and useless in future war .. Against the Barmaley, as shown by Syria without a normal AUG, it is expensive to fight.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 6 September 2021 08: 16
      +2
      Quote: shinobi
      In general, until the prospects for aviation became clear, this direction of development was fully justified for the colonial powers.

      Absolutely agree. And on submarines with aircraft carriers too.

      To the author of the article
      The Second World War did not reach perversion, well, except for the Japanese, who, of course, created a wonder of the world:

      And if this "perversion" appeared in the fleet of Great Britain or the United States? Would 2-3 Yamato-class battleships interfere with these fleets, or make them even stronger? And build Japan instead of Yamato, three Shinanos, would that change the overall course of the war?
      1. "Luck is always on the side of the big battalions."
      2. It is very easy to talk in 100 years about the expediency of this or that weapon ... In the 20s, the Americans were simply frightened of the "battleship arms race." British and Japanese designs were impressive and intimidating. Therefore, brilliant American diplomats then outplayed brilliant British and Japanese designers. And they did this not at all because of the "uselessness" of the battleships, but because of the threat, the real threat of being caught between the oceanic "rock and hard place" ...
      3. And Iowa, almost 50 years after WWII, has not lost much of its relevance ...
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 6 September 2021 08: 39
        +5
        Quote: Doccor18
        And Iowa, almost 50 years after WWII, has not lost much of its relevance ...
        why didn't they build then? After the war, none of the opponents of the United States had battleships, the British ran out of money - build and rule the seas! But no, almost everything was cut on pins and needles. And the aircraft carriers continued to build
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 6 September 2021 09: 07
          +2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          why didn't they build then?

          New? What's the point?
          1.In the early 50s, the era of jet aircraft began.
          2. A real large-scale war at sea was excluded. There were no worthy opponents left.
          3. The Iowas have already been. They did not need to be built from scratch, so they were quite useful for shelling the coast.
          4. Because of the rocket revolution, there were thoughts about the complete uselessness of armor.
          5. Well, the main argument is "grandmothers", or rather, their eternal shortage ...
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 6 September 2021 09: 33
            +3
            There is always not enough money for any garbage. Therefore, the "actual" battleships were written off, but the submarine was not spared on the aircraft carrier. This rubbish was not relevant
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 6 September 2021 09: 43
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              This rubbish was not relevant

              This became clear by the second half of WWII, but not like by the 20s ...
              1. Xlor
                Xlor 6 September 2021 11: 26
                -3
                This became clear by the second half of WWII, but not by the 20s ..

                The uselessness of heavy artillery ships became clear already in WWI. Why they were built in the interwar period is a mystery. Probably just a herd feeling - everyone builds and I will build too ... winked
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 6 September 2021 12: 21
          +2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Quote: Doccor18
          And Iowa, almost 50 years after WWII, has not lost much of its relevance ...
          why didn't they build then? After the war, none of the opponents of the United States had battleships, the British ran out of money - build and rule the seas! But no, almost everything was cut on pins and needles. And the aircraft carriers continued to build

          Because the Iowa projectile is much cheaper than missiles and sorties. For a reason they were actively used in Korea and Vietnam. The aircrafts even joked that each salvo of a battleship saves taxpayers millions of dollars.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 6 September 2021 12: 44
            -2
            So why didn't they build, those thrifty ones? Maybe because they calculated the cost of the ships, without which the shells cannot fly?
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 6 September 2021 13: 18
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              So why didn't they build, those thrifty ones? Maybe because they calculated the cost of the ships, without which the shells cannot fly?

              Why build if they already exist? Well, one at a time they do not go their aug covers.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 6 September 2021 13: 21
                +1
                Do you know how much LK was cut after 45 years? And how many ABs have been built? Not only did they not build, they also cut it. And aircraft carriers are still building
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 6 September 2021 16: 04
                  -2
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Not only did they not build, they also cut it. And aircraft carriers are still building

                  Because the concept of military operations has changed. Aluminum destroyers are in vogue. It is clear that they cut the old pre-war junk, and left the very last LKs, they also gave them tomahawks.
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 6 September 2021 16: 09
                    +1
                    old aircraft carriers also cut submarines ... and built new ones, and are still building
    3. Ilya_Nsk
      Ilya_Nsk 6 September 2021 09: 23
      +4
      The anti-ship missiles have long had a good range, extreme accuracy (they hit the target) and excellent speed - supersonic in mass, but AUG do not retire, even new ones are being introduced. Why? But because not everyone has anti-ship missiles in the right quantity and quality, but everyone needs to threaten.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 6 September 2021 18: 42
        +1
        The devil is hiding in the details or the statistics knows everything. They are building them, but look how many were written off during the period from VM to the present day. The picture is very interesting.
  5. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 6 September 2021 06: 45
    0
    Yeah! The only thing that can be a plus for Khrushchev is that he cut the crazy plans of Admiral Kuznetsov, who raved about monstrous battleships and cruisers of the pre-war period. At least the only useful thing was done by this small devil maize.
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 6 September 2021 12: 27
      +4
      Believe it or not, N.G. Kuznetsov was opposed to the construction of ships of pre-war projects. Moreover, he was one of the few who understood the importance of aircraft carriers and spoke about the need to include them in shipbuilding programs.
      In the same 1945, I presented a ten-year plan for design and shipbuilding. In this regard, the main classes of warships were aircraft carriers (large and small), cruisers with 9-inch artillery, submarines, destroyers, etc.

      The disputes that took place during the discussion concerned mainly aircraft carriers, on which I insisted and which were not accepted for construction. There were no big disputes over the cruisers. There were very heated debates about the destroyers. I strongly objected to the construction of a large number of old destroyers of Project No. 30, since they did not have universal artillery. We talked a lot about the new types of submarines that we already knew. The question of a heavy cruiser with 12-inch artillery did not even arise in my presence, although the Ministry of Armaments more than once, as I remember, recommended a 12-inch cannon.

      When the controversy about the new program was in full swing, I was removed from my post. Thus, the post-war shipbuilding program was finally discussed and adopted without me, contrary to my opinion, without taking into account my proposals. The construction of these ships also took place in my absence (1946-1951).

      Personally, I personally always considered the biggest mistakes in post-war shipbuilding to be the appearance of a heavy cruiser in construction, the construction of a large number of Project No. 30 destroyers, and the continuation of the construction of old Project No. 15 submarines.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 6 September 2021 14: 06
      -1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      plus Khrushchev, is that he cut the crazy plans of Admiral Kuznetsov, who raved about monstrous battleships and cruisers of the pre-war period.

      Stalin rather than Kuznetsov was "delirious" with them. Kuznetsov, on the contrary, wanted to build a balanced competitive Fleet, which would include, among other things, 4 heavy and 4 light aircraft carriers ...
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 6 September 2021 14: 29
        -1
        Quote: Doccor18
        Stalin rather than Kuznetsov was "delirious" with them. Kuznetsov, on the contrary, wanted to build a balanced competitive Fleet, which would include, among other things, 4 heavy and 4 light aircraft carriers ...

        Oh how! That is, Kuznetsov wanted to build a SECOND fleet of aircraft carriers after the United States! And you call such a "balanced" fleet? Of course, I understand that it is fashionable to nod at all mistakes at Stalin, but how then your statement about "Victory in spite of"? It turns out according to your logic, Stalin only sabotaged, and the generals and admirals did only for the benefit? Why then in WWI the generals and admirals did not defeat the Germans "despite" Nicholas II?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 6 September 2021 14: 48
          0
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Of course, I understand that it is fashionable to nod at all mistakes at Stalin, but how then your statement about "Victory in spite of"? It turns out according to your logic, Stalin only sabotaged, and the generals and admirals did only for the benefit? Why then in WWI the generals and admirals did not defeat the Germans "despite" Nicholas II?

          What is that?
          ............
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 September 2021 15: 03
        +5
        Quote: Doccor18
        Stalin rather than Kuznetsov was "delirious" with them. Kuznetsov, on the contrary, wanted to build a balanced competitive Fleet, which would include, among other things, 4 heavy and 4 light aircraft carriers ...

        The whole joke is that the post-war LC of the USSR was pushed not by the IVS, and not by the Navy as a whole, but only by one of the factions of the Navy.
        The passion of the IVS was heavy and large cruisers. And about the LC, he expressed himself very clearly:
        ... if you don't have much to do right now, take on the battleship.

        And in the Navy itself opinions were divided:
        2. VMA them. Voroshilov and the chief supervisor of the project, 24th Engineer-Captain 1st Rank I.M. Korotkin recommend relatively small ships with a small number of main guns, so that instead of one large battleship, you can build two small ones, while the V.A. Voroshilova recommends equipping the ship with 457-mm and 180-mm artillery.

        3. Naval intelligence does not recommend building battleships and cannot give anything either in the construction of battleships abroad, or even in the development trends of foreign battleships.

        4. Admiral V.P. Bogolepov separately said that the construction of the battleship in its current form should be abandoned.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 6 September 2021 16: 18
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The passion of the IVS was heavy and large cruisers.

          Yes, Project 82 with its 45000 tons was just a "grand" heavy cruiser.
          But Admiral Kuznetsov did not speak too flatteringly about these ships.
  6. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 6 September 2021 08: 19
    +5
    Battleships would be fine now, modern means of destruction are almost useless against these monsters, and you can hang weapons on them if you really don't want to. One drawback: well, very expensive to maintain and use.
    1. Ilya_Nsk
      Ilya_Nsk 6 September 2021 09: 28
      +4
      How many times has Iowa been removed from conservation? And after the Falklands .. Liners for guns and shells for them were sharpened fairly, tight-fisted s did not melt them. It turned out that it was very good to clean the Lebanese coast cheaply and angrily.
    2. ViacheslavS
      ViacheslavS 6 September 2021 23: 32
      +1
      Are modern anti-ship missiles useless against Iowa-class battleships?
  7. Kozak Za Bugra
    Kozak Za Bugra 6 September 2021 08: 19
    +1
    If you think so, battleships were the most useless weapon, they were used for their intended purpose five times if I am not mistaken. A direct assignment I consider to be a side-by-side battle between two fleets. For this reason, I do not consider the fight with Bismarck as a direct assignment, and Bismarck himself was supposed to act like a raider.
    The battle at Lissa, like the very first with the use of battleships, the battle at Yalu, Tsushima, an artillery duel in the yellow sea and the last time Jutland in the First World War.
    But at the same time, the fleet was a holding factor in world politics, like nuclear weapons, they were used in battle twice, but they were more useful as a holding element.
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 6 September 2021 09: 58
      +9
      Quote: Kozak Za Bugra
      The battle at Lissa, like the very first with the use of battleships, the battle at Yalu, Tsushima, an artillery duel in the yellow sea and the last time Jutland in the First World War.

      Forgotten the Spanish-American (Santiago de Cuba) and the First Balkan (the battle at Cape Ellie and Lemnos).
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 6 September 2021 13: 24
      -3
      Quote: Kozak Za Bugra
      If you think so, battleships were the most useless weapon, they were used for their intended purpose five times if I am not mistaken. A direct assignment I consider to be a side-by-side battle between two fleets. For this reason, I do not consider the fight with Bismarck as a direct assignment, and Bismarck himself was supposed to act like a raider.
      The battle at Lissa, like the very first with the use of battleships, the battle at Yalu, Tsushima, an artillery duel in the yellow sea and the last time Jutland in the First World War.
      But at the same time, the fleet was a holding factor in world politics, like nuclear weapons, they were used in battle twice, but they were more useful as a holding element.

      Dogger Bank and Falklands where 2 linear kr sank Spee. Scharnhorst sank. Hieya and Kirishima sank. Matapan battle.
  8. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 6 September 2021 08: 37
    +3
    Heroic battles ... Baltic "Varyag" and "Korean" - gunboats

    Can I ask the author to decipher this stream of consciousness?
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 6 September 2021 10: 02
      +8
      The author obviously means the battle of the gunboats Sivuch-2 and Koreets-2 with the German fleet at Cape Kimku in the Gulf of Riga. The "Steller" was shot by German dreadnoughts, and the "Korean" managed to go into shallow water and threw itself ashore there.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 6 September 2021 14: 27
        +1
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        The author obviously means the battle of the gunboats Sivuch-2 and Koreets-2 with the German fleet at Cape Kimku in the Gulf of Riga. The "Steller" was shot by German dreadnoughts, and the "Korean" managed to go into shallow water and threw itself ashore there.

        I know this) The question concerns how the phrase "RIF (Russian and imperial) fought well, but for some reason exceptionally small or outdated ships" fits in with the shooting of Steller Sea lion and Koreyets by the German cruiser Augsburg (battleships finished off the immobilized Steller Sea lion) And how this episode confirms disrepair of battleships?
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 6 September 2021 14: 29
          +3
          Quote: BORMAN82
          And how does this episode confirm the worthlessness of battleships?

          But this is a mystery :)))
          I don't really understand the twists and turns of his consciousness, and he stopped responding to comments a long time ago.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 6 September 2021 17: 16
            0
            Good afternoon, Ivan. hi
            With regard to quirks, everything is true, but I agree with him on one thing - the sailor, who was stupefied from idleness and hearty grub, became the very "revolted mass", relying on which the Bolsheviks seized power in St. Petersburg, and then in the country. I'm not talking about politics, but about real bayonets.
  9. Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 6 September 2021 09: 45
    +1
    Some kind of very one-sided view of the role of battleships, especially in World War II. The defense of Leningrad was largely due to large-caliber artillery, including from battleships. And if not one, but two battleships were transferred to the Black Sea, then it may well be that the defense of Sevastopol and the Crimea in 1941-42 would have become more successful. The main miscalculation was the underestimation of the importance of equipping the fleet with anti-aircraft guns and machine guns.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 6 September 2021 14: 39
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      Some kind of very one-sided view of the role of battleships, especially in World War II. The defense of Leningrad was largely due to large-caliber artillery, including from battleships. And if not one, but two battleships were transferred to the Black Sea, then it may well be that the defense of Sevastopol and the Crimea in 1941-42 would have become more successful. The main miscalculation was the underestimation of the importance of equipping the fleet with anti-aircraft guns and machine guns.

      Poor machine guns and anti-aircraft guns did not affect the German aviation at all. All the activities of the "commune" were reduced to night shelling of the coast. The question is again in the cover of aviation
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 6 September 2021 15: 52
        -1
        Aviation is of course very important, even more important than equipping with anti-aircraft weapons. But I would not call the DShK machine gun poor, with its help in the 80s they shot down not only helicopters, but also MIG-21 and SU-17 planes.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 September 2021 15: 15
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      And if not one, but two battleships were transferred to the Black Sea, then it may well be that the defense of Sevastopol and the Crimea in 1941-42 would have become more successful.

      Without normal basing, the same thing will happen to the second LC as with the first - it will knock out the resource of the main guns and mechanisms during the autumn-winter campaigns of 1941-1942 and stand up for repairs.
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      The main miscalculation was the underestimation of the importance of equipping the fleet with anti-aircraft guns and machine guns.

      It is not a matter of underestimation - "the case of the need for an MZA" in the mid-30s reached the level of resolutions of the Council of Defense. The fact is that MZA at that time was high-tech, which even the advanced countries did not always master. A classic case - in the USA, the "Chicago piano" was brought to mind for 10 years, and it was still late for the war: in Pearl Harbor, on the LK, instead of the regular MZA, 76-mm anti-aircraft guns of the WWII era were in their nests. Moreover, when the 28-mm MZA still went into production, it turned out to be obsolete, and a year later it was replaced with a 40-mm machine gun.
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 6 September 2021 16: 34
        -3
        If there were problems with anti-aircraft guns, then the DShK machine gun was already mass-produced in 1941. He, too, had a complex design in production, and was also in short supply, but its efficiency could be significantly improved by improving the primitive design of column-mounted machine gun installations. And now the MTPU with a 14,5 mm machine gun looks wretched, but at least has a lumbar support. And how you can count on effective standing shooting, without fast electric guidance drives, is difficult for me to understand. Even the rifle version of the DShK machine gun on wheels and a tripod has equipment for seated firing. The absence of installations with electric drives and with DShK machine guns can only be explained by the narrowness of the design thought, as well as the intelligible technical specifications for the development.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 September 2021 16: 58
          0
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          The absence of installations with electric drives and with DShK machine guns can only be explained by the narrowness of the design thought, as well as the intelligible technical specifications for the development.

          The absence of installations with electric drives and with DShK machine guns can be explained much more simply - the absence of the need for such installations. ZPU is the last line of defense of the ship. The latter is both in range and in reliability - they must shoot and aim when everything else is no longer working. And the range of their fire allows only self-defense from attack aircraft.
          In addition, no ZPU with an electric drive will save in a situation where even on the latest cruisers, the ZKDB is not equipped with electric drives, on EM there are no MPUAZO provided for by the project, and the MZA, even according to the project, do not have power drives. For the USSR is a poor country in terms of technology and personnel.
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 6 September 2021 17: 05
            -2
            The lack of an electric drive on anti-aircraft guns can somehow be understood, they need a lot of drive power, and it's more difficult to ensure speed. But on large-caliber machine guns, on the contrary, the absence of a low-power drive is more difficult to explain, here it is easier to manufacture, and the effectiveness of fire could increase significantly. So, about the absence of the need, I cannot agree, standing, without supports and drives, in my opinion, it is very difficult to get there.
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 6 September 2021 17: 21
              +2
              Yes, what is the efficiency on ships from the DShK ???? The Americans considered the 20-mm Erlikons a psychological weapon. So that the crew is not so scared. If Erlikons started to shoot, it means that it is too late. About this far and wide, wherever it is not written.
              1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                Sergey Aleksandrovich 6 September 2021 17: 24
                -2
                The effectiveness of the DShK can be very high, in Afghanistan even MiG-21 and Su-17 received damage from their fire.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 6 September 2021 17: 25
                  +2
                  The planes that had already dropped the bombs were damaged. In a literate way, it was not possible to fly anywhere after that.
                  1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                    Sergey Aleksandrovich 8 September 2021 17: 06
                    0
                    And it is also written up and down that Browning 12,7 of that time was significantly inferior to the DShK in everything, in ballistics, muzzle energy and rate of fire? Or they are used to transferring foreign templates without thinking about the differences. Of course, it is desirable to have a larger caliber. But other possibilities should not be ignored either.
                    1. Pilat2009
                      Pilat2009 17 September 2021 10: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                      And it is also written up and down that Browning 12,7 of that time was significantly inferior to the DShK in everything, in ballistics, muzzle energy and rate of fire? Or they are used to transferring foreign templates without thinking about the differences. Of course, it is desirable to have a larger caliber. But other possibilities should not be ignored either.

                      He may be inferior, only the planes are neither cold nor hot because of this. Have you ever wondered why they put guns on planes?
                      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                        Sergey Aleksandrovich 17 September 2021 10: 39
                        0
                        Or maybe you shouldn't rush to extremes? So you can agree to the point that anti-aircraft machine guns do not need to be installed at all. And, even for small-caliber cannons, and even more so for machine guns, high-speed electric guidance drives are not needed, because, in your opinion, they are useless.
                        Comparison with airplanes is generally inappropriate. There are very strict restrictions on space and weight, there is no such thing on ships.
                        As the saying goes, with a clear eye, all opponents argue that aiming drives are not needed, because machine guns are useless, and therefore it is necessary to shoot while standing, because it is still not necessary to hit because it is useless. Great logic.
                      2. Pilat2009
                        Pilat2009 17 September 2021 12: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Or maybe you shouldn't rush to extremes? So you can agree to the point that anti-aircraft machine guns do not need to be installed at all. And, even for small-caliber cannons, and even more so for machine guns, high-speed electric guidance drives are not needed, because, in your opinion, they are useless.
                        Comparison with airplanes is generally inappropriate. There are very strict restrictions on space and weight, there is no such thing on ships.
                        As the saying goes, with a clear eye, all opponents argue that aiming drives are not needed, because machine guns are useless, and therefore it is necessary to shoot while standing, because it is still not necessary to hit because it is useless. Great logic.

                        Firstly, I did not say that the drives were useless, and secondly, they told you that the USSR was not able to do this. I'll tell you a secret, even post-war destroyers had big problems with stabilizing and controlling air defense points. And you drown for machine guns
                      3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                        Sergey Aleksandrovich 18 September 2021 10: 39
                        0
                        There is still no drive on the 14,5-mm MTPU, as well as devices for seated firing, which does not mean at all about the possibilities of their manufacture, but about the unwillingness to equip the installations.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 September 2021 09: 50
          +1
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          But on large-caliber machine guns, on the contrary, the absence of a low-power drive is more difficult to explain, here it is easier to manufacture, and the effectiveness of fire could increase significantly.

          What is the fire efficiency of the ZPU, what are you talking about?
          By the beginning of WWII, the 12,7 caliber was already considered insufficient both in efficiency and in firing range. He remained in the West only because the military industry of the same Britain and the United States, weakened by peacetime, could not quickly ensure the transition to a 20-mm caliber. And also because of the weak adaptability of the original technology of manufacturing "Erlikons" (and the "Bofors" too) for mass production: 1941 man-hours were spent on the manufacture of "Erlikon" in 428, and only by 1944, after the design was revised to the side manufacturability, costs were reduced to 76 man-hours. As a result, the USN had received only 1941 Oerlikons by December 379.
          And by the way, all Oerlikon installations, except for the British Mark V and VC, had manual guidance.

          The most interesting thing is that the effectiveness of 20-mm anti-aircraft guns was also rated rather low. The commander of AB Enterprise, in his 1942 report on the battles near the Solomon Islands, directly wrote that the range of fire of the 20-mm MZA is not enough to work on dive bombers: 20-mm anti-aircraft guns can effectively fire only at planes that have already dropped bombs.
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 7 September 2021 10: 08
            -2
            Do you want to prove to me that the more the better? Don't do this. Or maybe you want to prove that if the British and Americans had manual guidance, then manual guidance is mandatory for us? And if they fired while standing, then should we have done so?
  • hostel
    hostel 6 September 2021 10: 35
    -1
    British battleships during the Second World War, just fought, fought a lot. The author lowered the paints, but the submarines did not become a weapon of miracle, but they occupied their niche.
    1. Xlor
      Xlor 6 September 2021 11: 39
      -3
      British battleships during World War II, just fought, fought a lot
      Do not remind me of what they fought there?

      The author lowered the paints, but the submarines did not become a weapon of miracle, but they occupied their niche
      Did you know that what did not become a miracle weapon sank millions of tons of tonnage? Add to this the Ark Royal aircraft carrier. Add the blockade of Japan by American submarines ...
      1. shkiper83
        shkiper83 6 September 2021 14: 11
        0
        There is a wonderful book by the historian of the English fleet, unfortunately I forgot his name, about the actions of battleships during WWII. Including statistics, how many miles traveled, in which operations they took part, how many convoys they conducted. War is essentially a hard day-to-day job, not just a mutual fund bang.
        1. Slasherrus
          Slasherrus 6 September 2021 16: 46
          0
          Navy and War (3 books) | Roskilde Stephen Wentworth
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 6 September 2021 14: 45
        -2
        Quote: Xlor
        British battleships during World War II, just fought, fought a lot
        Do not remind me of what they fought there?

        The author lowered the paints, but the submarines did not become a weapon of miracle, but they occupied their niche
        Did you know that what did not become a miracle weapon sank millions of tons of tonnage? Add to this the Ark Royal aircraft carrier. Add the blockade of Japan by American submarines ...

        Bismarck and Scharnhorst were sunk, escorted the convoys. The Fuehrer gave the order to the raiders not to get involved in the battle if the battleship was in cover. Therefore, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did not even contact Rhynown. Even the battle of Prince and Hood with Bismarck also says that they did not sit in the bases. The Mediterranean Sea generally drove the Italians into ports
        1. Xlor
          Xlor 6 September 2021 16: 42
          -1
          Bismarck and Scharnhorst sunk, escorted the convoys ...
          even the fight between Prince and Hood with Bismarck also says that they did not sit in the bases

          This one expensive and useless weapon fought with another - just as useless and expensive ... Even if this battle had not happened, the course of the war, neither at sea nor on land, would not have changed in any way ... I'll make a reservation, "worthless" this weapon was in WWII ...
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 7 September 2021 07: 14
            -1
            Quote: Xlor
            Bismarck and Scharnhorst sunk, escorted the convoys ...
            even the fight between Prince and Hood with Bismarck also says that they did not sit in the bases

            This one expensive and useless weapon fought with another - just as useless and expensive ... Even if this battle had not happened, the course of the war, neither at sea nor on land, would not have changed in any way ... I'll make a reservation, "worthless" this weapon was in WWII ...

            You also tell this to the Dutch and the French, who fought for the colonies in the 1700s. In fact: the British did not have a fleet in the Pacific in 1941 and Japan did. Therefore, Japan captured everything.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 September 2021 15: 23
        0
        Quote: Xlor
        Did you know that what did not become a miracle weapon sank millions of tons of tonnage?

        Exactly until that time, until the PLO was established. After the appearance of basic patrolmen with radar, RSL and homing torpedoes and escort AVs with their "smaller brothers" on the decks, as well as saturation of the escort with specialized ships, the "miracle weapon" turned into a game.
        Quote: Xlor
        Add to this the Ark Royal aircraft carrier.

        Good luck and nothing else. Ten miles to the side - and the submarine commander bites his elbows, as did Inright, who missed the Japanese AV when he had full information about his future whereabouts.
        Quote: Xlor
        Add the blockade of Japan by American submarines ...

        If initially conceptually abandon PLO communications - and this is not possible.
        By the way, Japan also had submarines - and where are their successes?
        1. Xlor
          Xlor 6 September 2021 16: 54
          -2
          Exactly until that time, until the PLO was established ...
          ... the "wonder weapon" has turned into game

          I remember, in one of our discussions, I said that this is not really a war of personal exploits and weapons, although it was also, but more a war of economies. The Americans, relying on their industry, quickly managed to establish a PLO, so the German submarines "turned into game" ...

          Good luck and nothing else

          In this case, the sinking of the "Bismarck" is good luck and Stalingrad and the landing in Normandy ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 September 2021 17: 03
            +1
            Quote: Xlor
            In this case, the sinking of the "Bismarck" is a stroke of luck.

            No. For surface ships and carrier-based aircraft, 10-20-30 miles to the left and right are not important. But for a submarine, an accurate approach to the target is critically important. A step to the left, a step to the right - and the attack is thwarted.
            We saw him at 5.55 in the distance, through the morning haze. Oh, it was a magnificent sight! One of the handsome, modern heavy aircraft carriers - "Sekaku" or "Zuikaku", appeared. In our "Identification Handbook of Japanese Ships" the tonnage of each was determined at 30 tons. Both of them were involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor, anyone deserved to be a great trophy. Unfortunately, the aircraft carrier passed nine miles from us, exactly in the very place that my chief officer and navigator had calculated, taking into account the Japanese navigator's ignorance of the Kuroshio current decrease.

            The aircraft carrier was exactly in the place where, as my intuition prompted me, studying at Annapolis and ten years of experience, it should be.

            We didn't have the slightest chance of attacking him. We were at him abeam. The distance of 9 miles could just as well be 90 and 900 miles. The aircraft carrier left at a speed of 22 knots. On the surface, our boat had a top speed of 19 knots. It was dawning quickly, and we might soon be discovered.
            © J. Inright
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 7 September 2021 08: 30
            -1
            Quote: Xlor
            Exactly until that time, until the PLO was established ...
            ... the "wonder weapon" has turned into game

            I remember, in one of our discussions, I said that this is not really a war of personal exploits and weapons, although it was also, but more a war of economies. The Americans, relying on their industry, quickly managed to establish a PLO, so the German submarines "turned into game" ...

            Good luck and nothing else

            In this case, the sinking of the "Bismarck" is good luck and Stalingrad and the landing in Normandy ...

            That's right, this is a war of economies, who built the most ships, he won, but it is also a system for training aircraft crews, which the Japanese ran out of after Midway, technical superiority in the quality of radars and aircraft
      4. hostel
        hostel 22 September 2021 22: 03
        0
        Willingly. The battle in the Children's Strait, New Year's battle, convoys to Malta and Gibraltar, the destruction of French bases. This is only at a discount, but about a million flooded tons, we can say that this did not help the Germans, the blockade failed.
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 6 September 2021 10: 59
    +2
    The era of battleships is gone, and those who spent a minimum of money on them and did not actually reach the monsters well over 200 tons and 460 millimeter guns were lucky.
    Or I would say "there was enough intelligence and political will" not to finish building, but to use forces and resources on tanks, weapons and other more important and necessary things.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 6 September 2021 11: 23
    +9
    The article is a classic sketch, already traditional for the site, according to the classic proverb about the strength of the hind mind.
    1. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 6 September 2021 14: 29
      +2
      Moreover, it was sketched with illiterate "broad strokes" negative
  • Decimalegio
    Decimalegio 6 September 2021 13: 02
    +3
    Everything can be discussed, but one thing is beyond doubt: battleships are the most beautiful ships ever built.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 6 September 2021 14: 21
    +1
    Again, our RIF (Russian and imperial) fought well, but for some reason, with exceptionally small or outdated ships. Heroic battles - destroyers and old cruisers, Baltic "Varyag" and "Koreets" - gunboats, victory in a linear battle - old EBR, defense of the Gulf of Riga - they are the same. It seems that we had battleships, that we didn't ...

    It is simply not necessary to reduce the war at sea of ​​the RIF in WWI only to the Baltic and only to direct clashes.
    The Black Sea Fleet fought in full force - from the LK to the submarine. And his LK did the main thing - they ensured dominance at sea. With their commissioning, it became possible, for example, to keep a lone non-armored carrier "Rostislav" to support the coastal flank of the army. Or to conduct landings on the scale of a brigade-division.
    The era when a high-speed LKR calmly rummages around the Black Sea, which can be anywhere, and only a brigade of low-speed EBRs can repulse its attack, is over. After the first clashes with the Empresses, the now Turks (Germans) had to proceed from the possibility that either at the target or on the retreat the LKR could meet with slightly inferior speed, but superior in armament, to the LK of the Black Sea Fleet. And the longer the LKR is behind the Bosphorus, the greater the chance of its interception when returning.

    And BF ... for BF the situation was mirrored - the admirals had to take into account the possibility that at any moment on the battlefield in the heavy forces the KhZF would appear. Moreover, if the German LK of the second generation "Seva" could leave (and from the first - and brush it off with luck, if only they and if they do not shoot down the move), then Hipper's Reconnaissance Group put a big iron cross on our LKs.
    1. Vlad09
      Vlad09 6 September 2021 15: 19
      0
      Why so? Moltke, Seydlitz and Von der Tann - 28 280 mm guns, Derflinger and Lutzov - 16 305 mm guns, 4 battleships of the Sevastopol type - 48 305 mm guns. The booking of German battlecruisers, of course, is better, and the move is more, but the difference in the number of guns must also be borne in mind, in battle any options are possible. Although, of course, the German ships were very good.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 September 2021 15: 28
        0
        Quote: Vlad09
        Why so? Moltke, Seydlitz and Von der Tann - 28 280 mm guns, Derflinger and Lutzov - 16 305 mm guns, 4 battleships of the Sevastopol type - 48 305 mm guns.

        Because the task of the LKR KhZF is not to sink the Seva, but to detain them, force them to engage in battle and maneuver. Ideally - to knock down the move. And there the German LK will catch up.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 6 September 2021 14: 24
    0
    I think so, the fate of battleships in our time awaits a cruiser.
  • Vlad09
    Vlad09 6 September 2021 15: 10
    -1
    "and two types of Nagano in Japan." The battleships were called "Nagato" and "Mutsu", not Nagano ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 September 2021 15: 33
      +2
      Quote: Vlad09
      "and two types of Nagano in Japan." The battleships were called "Nagato" and "Mutsu", not Nagano ...

      Nagano, Nagato and Nagumo - prefecture, ship and admiral. And look - don't mix it up! ©
      It's like Spee, Scheer and Speer. smile
  • Hog
    Hog 6 September 2021 15: 49
    +3
    What kind of "left" article, what other submarines, torpedo boats and aircraft carriers ???
    In the 20s, aircraft carriers were isolated experimental ships, no more.
    Submarines took shape as a class of hunters for the merchant fleet, they could not do more (there are exceptions, but these are the exceptions).
    Torpedo boats, generally laughter. They were used near the coast, preferably in calm and fog.
    So where does all these types of ships have to do with it?
    All ships at that time were built with the expectation of repeating Jutland. All linear forces go out to sea and fight with the same enemy.
    PS: The comments like "yes, for this money it was possible to build such a fleet and an army." A fleet of light forces is not viable in an open confrontation with an enemy with heavy ships.
    1. Xlor
      Xlor 6 September 2021 17: 00
      -3
      All ships at that time were built on the basis of a repetition of Jutland.

      After the Battle of Jutland, it was just the admirals who began to think about whether heavy artillery ships were needed ...
      1. Macsen_wledig
        Macsen_wledig 6 September 2021 19: 31
        -1
        Quote: Xlor
        After the Battle of Jutland, it was just the admirals who began to think about whether heavy artillery ships were needed ...

        They thought so much that they began to develop new shipbuilding programs: 8-8, 10-6, 4-4 ...
        And only the Washington Treaty stopped this orgy. Something even had to be rebuilt-cut-drowned ...
  • iskanderzp
    iskanderzp 6 September 2021 18: 19
    -1
    Dear Colleagues! Those who dispute the necessity of battleships in the first half of the 20th century, IMHO, forget one simple thing. Who built the ships of the line? COLONIAL empires and their opponents. The first needed a tool to protect them, the second - a lever to "squeeze" them. This was the powerful ocean-going fleet. And the LK, according to the naval doctrines of that time, were his main strength. And even those who understood the growing role of aircraft carriers took into account that these fragile ships needed powerful armored protection. Those same LK ... And everything else is the cost of after-knowledge ...)))
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 6 September 2021 19: 35
    0
    Fischer came up with a light battle cruiser with 4 main guns, only 457 mm.

    Author stop The so-called light battlecruisers "Glories" and "Koreyges" carried 4 guns in two turrets, but with a caliber of 381mm. And already the apogee of Fischer's delusional ideas in his old age was "Furies". Yes, this light battle cruiser carried 457mm guns, but only two (2), one in each turret. Therefore, it is necessary to give a little more correct data. The victims of the Unified State Exam do not double-check the information, but take their word for it wink yes
    About the recalculations in the number of units for each country, I still fucking shit. fool
    How is the counting done? By the years of the bookmark or when it was commissioned in August 1914? The confusion is awesome. Personally, I spat !!!
    Germany followed the same path - starting in 1909, 16 battleships were built in six years. In the USA they tried to keep up and built 10 monsters, France - 4 battleships, Italy - 4 battleships, Russia - 4 battleships, Japan - 2 battleships, and even Austria-Hungary - 4 battleships did not stand aside. Thus, in eight years, the leading countries of the world received 70 armored monsters - this despite the fact that the battleships of the previous era did not disappear anywhere. And that's not all - in addition to battleships, there were also battle cruisers, even bigger in size, only faster and worse protected. They were built 10 in Britain, 5 in Germany, 2 in Japan. As a result, 86 armored monsters, plus a horde of armored and also monsters, but of the previous generation.

    Germany at the start of the war in August 14th had 15 battleships and 4 battle cruisers in service. 2 more "königs" and 3 "derflingers" entered service after the start of the war. The USA - yes, 10 were built. Italy - 3, three more entered service after the outbreak of the war. Austria-Hungary also started the war with three battleships. "St. Istvan" entered service in the 15th year. The Yapps started a war with 2 Kavachi-class hybrids and 2 battle cruisers Congo and Hiei. Haruna and Kirishima were commissioned later.
    And in just eight years, Britain built 26 battleships just for itself.

    24. 9 more battle cruisers. The Tiger entered service after the outbreak of the war, like all battleships with 15 "Art" and "Canada." All Russian dreadnoughts entered service after the outbreak of the war. Therefore, we can safely say that RI started the war without dreadnought battleships.
    Minus the article would be soldered boldly yes
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 6 September 2021 20: 42
    +2
    For the sake of interest, as an addition to the article, let's count how many battleships and battle cruisers (as a subclass) were built, starting with the Dreadnought and ending with Vanguard (the British started and finished). Only we will take into account only what has entered service. Go...
    United Kingdom:
    Dreadnought, 3 types of Bellerophon, 3 types of Saperb, Neptune, 2 types of Hercules, Edgincourt, Erin, Canada, 4 types of Orion, 4 types of King George V, 4 Iron Duke, 5 Queen Elizabeth and 5 Rivenge, add 2 Nelson, 5 Prince of Wales and Vanguard, and the British built 43 battleships.
    Battlecruisers: 3 Invincible, 3 Indefatigable, 3 Lion, Tiger, 2 Repals, two Glories and Hood light battlecruisers. aircraft carriers. "Furies" immediately began to rebuild into an aircraft carrier, so we will not count it. Total 15. Plus 43. Great Britain gave the world 58 ships of the line class.
    Germany:
    4 types "Nassau", 4 types "Helgoland", 5 types "Kaiser", 4 types "Koenig", 2 types "Baden", 2 types "Gneisenau" and 2 types "Bismarck". "Pocket" battleships "of the" Deutschland "type are not taken into account, because they officially went as battleships, and subsequently generally go as heavy cruisers. Battle cruisers: "Von der Tann", 2 types "Moltke", "Seydlitz" and 3 types "Derflinger. Total 7. In total, 30 from Germany.
    France: 4 types of Jean Bar, 3 types of Brittany, 2 types of Dunkirk and 2 types of Richelieu. A total of 11 units.
    Italy: Dante Alighieri, 3 types of Giulio Cesare, 2 types of Cayo Duilio and 3 types of Vittorio Veneto. A total of 9 units.
    Russia: 4 types "Poltava" and 3 types "Empress Maria". 7
    Austria-Hungary: 4 types of Viribus Unitis
    Spain: 3 types of "Espanya"
    USA: 2 Michigan types, 2 Delaver types, 2 Florida types, 2 Arkansas types, 2 Texas types, 2 Nevada types, 2 Pennsylvania types, 3 New Mexico types , 2 types of "Tennessee", 3 types of "Colorado", 2 types of "North Caroline", 4 types of "Indiana", 4 types of "Missouri". Total 32 battleships. "Alaska" and "Guam" do not count, because the Americans themselves classified them as big cruisers, direct descendants of the Baltimore.
    Brazil: 2 types of Sao Paulo
    Argentina: 2 types of "Moreno"
    Japan: 2 Kawachi types, 2 Fuso types, 2 Ise types, 2 Nagato types and 2 Yamato types. Plus 4 Congo-class battlecruisers. Total 14 units.
    Let's summarize. In total, from the Dreadnought to the Vanguard, 146 battleships and 26 battle cruisers were built and commissioned. and the total amount is 172 units
    It was laid down did not enter service or were not completed 6 in England (1 completed as an aircraft carrier), 15 in the USA (2 completed as aircraft carriers), 6 in Japan (2 completed as aircraft carriers), 6 in Germany, 6 in France (1 completed as an aircraft carrier), 5 in Russia, 5 in Italy. In total, 49 more battleships and battle cruisers have not seen the light of day ...
    Like this... hi
    1. Macsen_wledig
      Macsen_wledig 6 September 2021 21: 38
      -2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      "Pocket" battleships "of the" Deutschland "type are not taken into account, because they officially went as battleships, and subsequently generally go as heavy cruisers.

      From a bureaucratic point of view, the question is very interesting, because according to the 1935 treaty, they passed the "battleship" quota, since they corresponded to the conditions set out in the Washington Treaty, which Germany agreed to abide by. The same is with the 37 treaty.

      Quote: Rurikovich
      5 in Russia,

      Even not enough ... :)
      You forgot three LK pr. 23 and two KRT pr. 69
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 6 September 2021 22: 37
        -1
        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
        Even not enough ... :)
        You forgot three LK pr. 23

        Exactly recourse You can't remember everything smile smile
      3. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 7 September 2021 07: 00
        0
        And I forgot 2 more unfinished "Yamato" types .... lol smile hi
  • Pavel the builder
    Pavel the builder 6 September 2021 20: 48
    -1
    And why is our "Peter the Great," not a battleship? Powerful weapons, only instead of PKR guns. And he can stand up for himself alone
    1. Evgesha
      Evgesha 6 September 2021 21: 30
      +1
      belay
      fool
      stop
      Well, he is not a battleship, not a battleship !!!!
    2. Gembyh124
      Gembyh124 8 September 2021 11: 32
      0
      He will not be able to single-handedly, the number of anti-aircraft missiles is limited. Aircraft carrier in pair, and preferably not Kuznetsov
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 8 September 2021 17: 08
    0
    Quote: Doccor18
    Stalin rather than Kuznetsov was "delirious" with them. Kuznetsov, on the contrary, wanted to build a balanced competitive Fleet, which would include, among other things, 4 heavy and 4 light aircraft carriers ...

    The aircraft carrier, one heavy for the Baltic, the Black Sea, Murmansk and Vladivostok, and one light for the Azov and Caspian seas, Baikal and Ladoga.
    And Stalin raved about some kind of nuclear submarines and missiles on ships.
  • Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 19 September 2021 20: 56
    0
    A boring article with an extremely narrow look at the history of the use of capital ships.
    Many emotional words, few facts and detailed analysis of the subject.