Military Review

Japanese "Varangian"

95

Our proud Variag does not surrender to the enemy,
No one wants mercy.


Version number 1. Brilliant victory

East China Sea, 100 miles southwest of the Japanese island of Kyushu. Here, on April 7, 1945, a real sea tragedy erupted: under the blows of the deck aviation The US Navy killed a Japanese squadron led by the battleship Yamato. Superlinkor with a total displacement of 70 thousand tons was ingloriously drowned two hours after the start of the air attack.

That day the Japanese lost 3665 sailors. The American casualties were 10 airplanes (four torpedo bombs, three bomber, three fighters) and 12 pilots - the microscopic price for the destruction of the largest warship in stories Humanity. In principle, in the annals of maritime history, more paradoxical situations are known, for example, the incredible return of “Seidlitz” or the miraculous salvation of the brig “Mercury”. But the sea battle of 7 on April 1945 of the year was a truly momentous event - a fat point was put in the long dispute between an artillery ship and an aircraft carrier. From now on, the most obstinate skeptics became aware of who is the lord of the seas. The war in the Pacific, starting with the battleship pogrom at Pearl Harbor, ended with the triumphal sinking of the most powerful battleship on the planet. Deck aviation stunningly dealt with any enemy on the coast and in the open ocean.

But back to that legendary sea battle, for the past 70 for years, an all-time lover of maritime stories. According to the plan of suicide operations of Ten-Go, "Yamato", despite the many times superior enemy forces, had to break through to the island of Okinawa, where it ran aground and turn into an impregnable fortress. To maximize this Odyssey, the battleship was given an escort from the cruiser and 8 destroyers:

Aircraft sausage cruiser "Yahagi". A terrible sight.


Light cruiser "Yahagi". The total displacement is 7500 tons. Armament *: 6 x 150 mm guns, 2 twin anti-aircraft guns caliber 76 mm, 62 anti-aircraft machine gun, forty-eight (!) 610 mm torpedoes. Reservations: belt - 60 mm, upper armored decks - 20 mm. Fast and strong ship, ideal for the role of the destroyer division flagship.
* all data on 07.04.1945

Two specialized destroyers of air defense "Suzutzuki" and "Fyutzuki". Both ships were much larger than the usual destroyers, their size corresponded to the legendary Soviet leader "Tashkent". The cruising range reached 8000 miles (at 18 knots), which in theory allowed them to cross the Pacific Ocean and go back to Japan without replenishing fuel supplies. The main armament of destroyers: 8 x 100 mm highly automated anti-aircraft guns, 48 anti-aircraft guns caliber 25 mm. Guided by a radar, the Suzutsuki and Fyutzuki guns were supposed to create an irresistible wall of anti-aircraft fire.

Six "ordinary" destroyers. Each armament: 6 x 127 mm universal guns, 25 - 30 anti-aircraft guns, torpedoes, depth charges. For its time, the Japanese destroyers possessed high speed (35-40 knots.) And excellent nautical qualities.

And, in fact, the battleship Yamato itself (the ancient name of Japan). 70 thousand tons full displacement. Speed ​​27 knots (50 km / h). Crew 2500 man. Armor belt - half a meter of solid armor. Impenetrable and unsinkable. The main caliber is 460 mm (nine guns in three towers).
The 24 mm 127 universal naval guns and one hundred sixty-two! 162 mm automatic anti-aircraft guns covered the battleship attacks from the battleship from the air. The fire control systems included 25 radars of various ranges.

All pennants hover and chains rattle,
To the top of the anchor lift,
Prepare to fight the guns in a row,
The sun sparkles ominously


In total, American aviation opposed up to 100 medium-caliber artillery barrels and over 500 automatic anti-aircraft guns, not counting the heavy machine guns and the monstrous “Sansiki-type 3”? created by Japanese engineers anti-aircraft ammunition caliber 460 mm. At a given height of the projectile struck multimeter flames, and it turned into a ball of thousands of striking elements. Awesome fireworks turned out to be ineffective in practice. weapons, and terrible shots of the main caliber prevented shoot calculations of anti-aircraft installations.

Whistles and rattles and rumbles around
Thunder cannons, hiss projectiles.
And our fearless and proud Varyag became
Like hell pitch.


As expected, the sea pilots did not pay any attention to the deadly anti-aircraft fire and bravely attacked the squadron from all points. Pilots of torpedo bombers sought to get into the starboard side of the Yamato - they wanted to quickly return to their native aircraft carrier and get a portion of ice cream, so it was decided to hit only one side with torpedoes - so the battleship would quickly turn over. Indeed, in less than two hours, Yamato lay on its side and suddenly turned into a bright flash of light. The multi-kilometer “mushroom” of the explosion was visible for tens of miles.

In death agony tremble body,
The thunder of guns, and smoke, and the walls.
And the ship is swept by the sea of ​​fire
Has a goodbye minute.


By the way, such a strange victory did not impress the American sailors, and the drowning of the Yamato never attached much importance. There was a battleship, then drowned.

Version number 2. Mandatory spoon of tar.

Yamato sank the 58-e operational connection of the US Navy. Behind this quite everyday name is the most powerful squadron of warships that ever traveled the oceans. Two dozen strike aircraft carriers under the cover of high-speed battleships, heavy cruisers and hundreds of destroyers. The air group of each aircraft carrier was equal in size to two Soviet aviation regiments of the 1945 model.
Japanese "Varangian"

TF58 turns to meet the enemy


Task Force 58 was the favorite means of the American command - this “club” beat anyone who dared to offer at least some resistance. During the landing on the atoll of Kwajalein, aircraft carriers and battleships dug week this piece of land until there was not a single tree left on it, and the soldiers of the Japanese garrison who had accidentally survived were deaf and in shock. Yes, the Americans preferred to throw heavy bombs and 406 mm shells at the enemy, rather than the corpses of their draftees (it is fair to say that this is a very correct approach to the conduct of hostilities). But, as one of the visitors to the Military Review Forum correctly noted, the American armed forces were the only ones who could afford it. The armies of the other countries had to win victories in bloody fights for life and death.

The deck of the aircraft carrier "Hornet". During the war years, the United States built a series of similar ships 24.


In early April 1945, the incredible Task Force 58, consisting of five strike carriers Essex, Hancock, Bennington, Hornet, Bunker Hill, as well as light aircraft carriers Bello Wood, San Jacinto Cabot and Bataan, under cover of an escort of six battleships such as Iowa and South Dakota, as well as countless submarines, cruisers and destroyers, patrolled 70 miles from Okinawa, waiting for the last remnants of the Imperial fleet will venture out into the open sea. The Yamato turned out to be such a desperate ship ...

In view of the foregoing, the sinking of the Yamato squadron looks like “beating up babies”. Against a single battleship, the Americans put out a dozen aircraft carriers. Shame US Navy!

Version number 3. Neutral.

Despite the impressive number of Task Force 58 ships, only deck-based aircraft operated against the Yamato. American battleships and cruisers did not take part - the battle took place in 300 miles to the west of the location of the main task force 58.
Further, all 280 deck planes from 400 that were available, i.e., participated in the attack. it is reasonable to assume that not even all aircraft carriers were involved. The 280 aircraft of the Yamato squadron attacked virtually 227 machines - the rest of the 53 were lost on the way and did not hit the target (admittedly, the raid occurred during bad weather, and there were no GPS systems at that time). But even this amount was enough in abundance.

Aircraft attacked not all at once, but in several waves. The first, the largest, consisted of 150 machines. After 20 minutes over the Japanese squadron, a second group appeared - 50 aircraft. Bombers came strictly from the nose of the battleship and went into a gentle dive, in this case their angular speed was so high that the Japanese anti-aircraft gunners did not have time to deploy the barrels of their guns. Fighters swarmed over the squadron, pouring decks of lead from .50 Browns over the decks. The torpedo bombers continued methodically smashing the starboard side of the Yamato. The battleship hit at least 15 bombs and 13 torpedoes.

Together with the battleship, the cruiser “Yahagi” died - a modest ship received six torpedoes one after the other. 8 escaped 4 escort destroyers. All of them received injuries of varying degrees of severity, and the destroyer “Suzutzuki” managed to escape from the severed nose part.

As a result of the battle, it is clearly noticeable that the Americans clearly overdid it and sent an excess amount of deck-based aircraft. For example, from more than two hundred machines of the shock group only 97 were torpedo bombs, and about a hundred other aircraft were F4 Corsair and F6F Hellcat fighters, whose presence was limited only by moral influence on the enemy. Initially, the declared number of aircraft - 280 units - could be easily provided by air groups of three aircraft carriers of the Essex type.

Do not forget that in the first (most numerous) wave, the Japanese squadron attacked the entire 150 deck aircraft. Therefore, theoretically, it can be assumed that the destruction of the Yamato and its squadron could provide two heavy aircraft carriers, subject to the refueling of the returned aircraft and the repetition of sorties - they had enough aircraft, fuel and ammunition. In 1945, the 100 aircraft were deployed on the Essex decks on average, deployed in two large (36-37 aircraft) squadrons of fighter-bombers and two smaller squadrons of dive-bombers and torpedo bombers (15 aircraft).

The number and type of ammunition on board aircraft carriers (from the monograph by A. Balakin "Aircraft carriers of the Essex type"

If two aircraft carriers were used, the result would have been the same, but, of course, such a course of events would take much longer - Yamato would be heated until the evening. In any case, a quite obvious conclusion follows from this story - aviation plays a decisive role in modern naval combat.

As for the superlinkor itself, the Japanese still respect the death of Yamato. 2500 man of the Yamato crew knew they were going to die. Bravely going out into the sea and dying in an unequal battle, he repeated the feat of the cruiser Varyag. And such an act is highly valued at all times.
Author:
95 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 20 October 2012 10: 18
    +5
    The battleship was excellent ..... but the operation itself, in which the Japanese sent him initially, was a stupid adventure and the ditching of ship crews ... although the Japanese didn’t really count people.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 10: 44
      +4
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      but the operation itself in which the Japanese sent him was originally a stupid adventure and the ditching of crews

      The Japanese would not be Japanese if they did not
  2. Santa bear
    Santa bear 20 October 2012 10: 32
    +6
    I recommend this movie, Japanese by the way. very clearly and plausibly shown, the scene of the last battle of Yamato was shot
  3. Santa bear
    Santa bear 20 October 2012 11: 11
    +9
    Sorry for the quality, I could not find this video in decent resolution anywhere. here is the full version of this scene. and if we talk about the fact that the Japanese slaughtered Yamato and the crews of their ships. Well, I agree with those who say .. this is their mother, the Japanese. BEFORE the Americans colonized them, they were ready to die, even in a very exotic and meaningless way, if only to fight to the last. it is the spirit of a warrior, the willingness to die for their beliefs and loyalty to their homeland. that which the Western world is trying to deprive of its adversaries and which it itself has almost lost.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 21 October 2012 20: 41
      0
      and if we talk about the fact that the Japanese slaughtered Yamato and the crews of their ships

      About such a thing as Bushido - to say the Way of the Warrior heard?
  4. core
    core 20 October 2012 12: 39
    +2
    as the author writes from two aircraft carriers, they could not have destroyed the Japanese squadron, the squadron would have left. one take off from the deck, but a hundred planes will land in a short time in a limited space, a completely different thing takes a lot of time, much more than for take-off. and also refueling, a canopy of new bomb weapons. the squadron would leave. when 10 people beat one to death, this is not a feat and the amers themselves do not betray much importance to this battle, there is nothing to be proud of.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 12: 57
      -3
      Quote: core
      couldn’t destroy the Japanese squadron, the squadron would leave

      Where would she go?
      Amers had a day left
      Quote: core
      but a hundred planes will land

      Not a hundred, but 60-70
      Quote: core
      when xnumx people beat one to death

      Not one, but 9)))) The Japanese had a whole squadron and the largest warship in the world
      V / i Yamato - 70 thousand tons
      In / and American aircraft carriers - from 11 to 30 thousand tons
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 21 October 2012 13: 14
      +5
      Quote: core
      when 10 people beat one to death, this is not a feat and the amers themselves do not betray much importance to this battle, there is nothing to be proud of.

      And this is not a fight, but a war. And the task is to inflict maximum damage on the enemy with minimal losses on their part. Or did the amers have to send their battleships to the Yamato meeting one by one? The law of war is simple - kill the enemy, or the enemy will kill you. not a knightly tournament. And the amers reasoned correctly, it is better to let the Japanese widows cry than the American ones.
  5. Trevis
    Trevis 20 October 2012 12: 47
    0
    Well, just a floating fortress. love
  6. Kars
    Kars 20 October 2012 13: 54
    +1
    There is nothing to look for mysteries about the total advantage of the Yankees at the end of the war due to economic and industrial potential.

    The only thing I regret is that the linear battle did not happen.

    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 13: 58
      0
      Quote: Kars
      the total advantage of the Yankees at the end of the war due to economic and industrial potential

      I agree, but this does not apply to the last campaign of Yamato. There were two groups of ships: aircraft carriers and the world's largest battleship with an escort. What came of this we know.
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 October 2012 14: 40
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There were two groups of ships: aircraft carriers and the world's largest battleship with an escort. What came of this we know.

        Well, Yamato did not even have enough fuel, which reduced its speed, and forced not all boilers to be active.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        aircraft carriers and the world's largest battleship

        The funny thing is that the displacement of aircraft carriers will be larger.

        But the fact that the Yankees did not have enough goals and they were able to allocate so many planes, not to mention the fact that without economic power they simply would not have driven so many ships))))

        Bonus picture. Here is such an interesting moment when old shells were fired from the new 305 mm guns with elongated barrels and increased speed, the latter were cracked on the armor that had been pierced before))))
        1. Santa Fe
          20 October 2012 14: 54
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Well, Yamato did not even have enough fuel, which reduced its speed, and forced not all boilers to be active.

          Did something change if the speed increased by an 2 node?
          Quote: Kars
          The funny thing is that the displacement of aircraft carriers will be larger.

          5 x 30 = 150. Yamato + escort = 100.
          And what a result!
          Quote: Kars
          But the fact that the Yankees did not have enough goals and they were able to allocate so many planes

          How many BFs did Niobe sink for?
          Quote: Kars
          Bonus picture

          I know a shell can hurt a person)))
          Quote: Kars
          cracked on the armor that had previously been pierced

          how much did speed increase?
          and what kind of armor?
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 October 2012 15: 09
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Something changed if speed increased by 2 nodes

            Naturally.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            5 x 30 = 150. Yamato + escort = 100.
            And what is the result

            Well, of course, add escort to scrap.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How many BFs did Niobe sink for?

            No idea.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            how much did speed increase?

            from 590 to 810 m / s (initial speed)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and what kind of armor?

            6 inches, distance 50 cable (given)


            Americans paid for it completely
            ridiculous price: turned out to be hit
            10 aircraft (4 helldivers, 3
            Evenger, 2 Hellcat and 1 Corsair),
            which killed 12 people - the rest
            managed to save. True, the damage was
            a fair number of other fighters,
            dive bombers and especially torpedo bombers,
            but the U.S. Navy is in dire need
            they were no longer in them. His adversary on
            the sea ceased to exist.


            Now extrapolate it to two aircraft carriers, proportionally.
            And we’ll find out the characteristics of the damaged ones, if he was recognized as not combat-ready after he got on deck, he’s not included in the above losses,
            1. Santa Fe
              20 October 2012 15: 28
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Something changed if speed increased by 2 nodes
              Naturally.

              Do not make me laugh. What is stopping a bad dancer?
              Quote: Kars
              Well, of course, add escort to scrap.

              American cruisers and battleships did not participate in the battle
              Quote: Kars
              No idea.

              found in the base of Kotka. Many pilots still remembered the raids on her in 1939-1940. As before, this base had a strong air defense: it was covered up to 12 anti-aircraft batteries mounted on hills, approaches from the sea were blocked by several layers of artillery fire. There was still a gap: the southwest direction was covered only by 2 anti-aircraft batteries. July 12 30 Pe-2 dive bombers from the 12 Guards Dive-Bomber Regiment under the command of Hero of the Soviet Union Guard Colonel V.I. Rakov was hit on the ship. They were covered by the 24 fighter Yak-9. Dive bombers dropped on the target about 70 FAB-500 and FAB-100 bombs. However, none of them reached the goal. Rakov explained this failure with a weak fighter cover and poor preparation of the pilots: mainly a new replenishment took part in the raid.

              In the second operation to destroy Niobe participated ... 132 aircraft!
              Not bad for an 40 summer fixed boat?
              Quote: Kars
              True, the damage was fair number other fighters, dive bombers and especially torpedo bombers,

              20 machines were damaged, of which some could be easily repaired in a couple of hours. No problem.
              Quote: Kars
              from 590 to 810 m / s (initial speed)

              So such shells.
              Usually strive to increase the flight speed of ammunition
              1. Kars
                Kars 20 October 2012 21: 51
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                . What is stopping a bad dancer?

                Well, it’s not 2 speed knots, which not only increases maneuverability, but also another position in space, and not 53 but 153 aircraft could get lost)))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                American cruisers and battleships did not participate in the battle

                I'm talking about light aircraft carriers--
                Participation in the attack
                Vali 58.1 aircraft carriers: heavy
                Hornet, Hancock, Bennington and Lungs
                Bello Wood and San Jacinto", and
                58.3 groups: heavy "Essex", "Ban-
                Ker Hill "and lungs "Bataan" and "Cabot


                And the escort is for sure, why not add it? He vets involved in the battle while guarding the aircraft carriers, maybe without those destroyers the sheds of the submarine will be drowned, and fewer aircraft left behind for self-defense.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Niobe participated ... 132 aircraft!

                Vryatli in this regard, someone will surpass Tirpitz))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                So such shells

                That's what I’m talking about to you))) that the quality and design of the ammunition are of great importance
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Usually strive to increase the flight speed of ammunition
                But at the same time, the design of ammunition is changing.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 23 October 2012 21: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  ammunition design

                  The increase in the fragmentation of the projectile with a decrease in the known limits of its mass and a simultaneous increase in the mass of the explosive charge, that is, with an increase in the filling ratio of the projectile, is justified theoretically and experimentally. The theoretical value of the optimal filling ratio is 0,25 ... 0,30, that is, it significantly exceeds the filling ratio of standard ammunition. For example, for 152-mm projectile 3ОФ25 “Vulture” it is 0,156 (mass of projectile 43,56 kg, mass of explosive charge 6,8 kg). Typical examples of thin-walled projectiles with a high filling ratio are the English 155-mm OF the LHNUMXA15 howitzer FH-1 and the domestic 70-mm high-explosive 203-F-53 projectile (the filling factors are 625 and 0,26, respectively).

                  The problems of ensuring the strength of a thin-walled projectile shell during a shot with an overload of more than 20000 are classified as solvable. A more difficult task is to ensure strength when firing at strong obstacles (semi-frozen and frozen soils, brick walls, etc.). The solution to this problem, on the one hand, is associated with the use of high-quality steels with high strength and reliability, and on the other, with the use of computer modeling of the process of deformation of the projectile during implementation and the transition to new criteria for assessing the strength of the projectile. An important role in solving the problem will be played by an increase in the accuracy of manufacturing the casing, in the first place, a decrease in the difference in thickness, which will require a reduction in accepted standards for the durability of a pressing tool
    2. Kars
      Kars 20 October 2012 14: 03
      +3
      But with Varyag it is certainly not entirely correct to compare.





      However, when at 11.15
      the Japanese detachment turned southeast,
      command of the 58th operational compound
      decided that he might not go
      to Okinawa and not wanting to miss such a tidbit
      target, ordered to launch an attack. First
      strike aircraft from aircraft carriers of the 58th
      connection at this time
      about 300 miles from the enemy, steel
      take off at 10 o’clock. Participation in the attack
      Vali 58.1 aircraft carriers: heavy
      Hornet, Hancock, Bennington and Lungs
      Bello Wood and San Jacinto, as well as
      58.3 groups: heavy "Essex", "Ban-
      Ker Hill "and lungs" Bataan "and" Cabot ".
      The structure of the strike air group organized by
      to destroy Japanese ships,
      280 aircraft entered, including 132 fighter
      Hellcat and Corsair 50 Dive
      helldiver bombers
      and 98 Avenger torpedo bombers. Actually
      the Japanese connection came out 227
      planes, since 53 of those launched
      target not found. In addition, another 106
      planes flew to strike,
      but were late to take part in the battle.


      And for the sinking, the thorn mister Yamato, rebuilt into the Shinano Aircraft Carrier, was only enough of this.
      1. Santa Fe
        20 October 2012 14: 29
        0
        Quote: Kars
        And for the sinking, the thorn mister Yamato, rebuilt into the Shinano Aircraft Carrier, was only enough of this.

        Shinano was not combat-ready coral:
        - the crew from the salag stepped onto the deck of the ship for 2 days before going to sea
        - bulkheads were not sealed, Shinano was unfinished
        - there were not even pumps for pumping water!
        - a third of the boilers did not work - the aircraft carrier crawled 18-ties. underway

        After the torpedo attack, Sinono kept moving and continued to move the same course - the water slowly spread through the inside of the ship, the death came only after 5 hours
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 October 2012 14: 31
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          - the crew of the salag stepped onto the deck of the ship in 2 days

          He would then not have moved away from the wall.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          there were not even pumps for pumping water

          four torpedoes.
          And by the way, are you sure?
          1. Santa Fe
            20 October 2012 14: 39
            0
            Quote: Kars
            He would then not have moved away from the wall.

            The crew stepped onto the deck 2 days before the exit, there were many civilian workers from the shipyard - after a torpedo attack, panic began.
            Quote: Kars
            four torpedoes.

            Busy for three hours saving people, the destroyers practically did not pursue the submarine, dropping only almost at random 14 depth charges.

            The sinking of the Shinano can hardly serve as any additional characteristic of the shortcomings or advantages of the Yamato-class ships. The damage was not fatal at all. The ship was running and controlled, and with proper damage control it would undoubtedly be saved. In essence, "Shinano" was a cruel experiment; how long a large ship, unprepared for action and abandoned by the crew, can resist the water. The result of such an experience could hardly have been different than it turned out on November 28, 1944.

            Quote: Kars
            And by the way, are you sure?

            Manual pumps could not save the ship. Fires extinguished with buckets, such a survivability division
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 October 2012 14: 46
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Hand pumps did not save the ship

              Well, if you know how to use them, then the people were dofiga.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Fires extinguished in buckets

              Well, there's nothing to say
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              characterization of the flaws or merits of ships

              DISADVANTAGES or ADVANTAGES.

              And still ONE submarine)))))))))))) you can even remember Indianapolis. Or the IGL.
              1. Santa Fe
                20 October 2012 15: 05
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Well, if you can use them

                See paragraph on crew quality.
                Quote: Kars
                And still ONE submarine)))))))))))

                Two other Yamato-class battleships sank the planes ... and?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 20 October 2012 21: 39
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Two other Yamato-class battleships sank the planes ... and?

                  And? Normally drowned, there is nothing sinking except for the Concrete Armadillo))
                  And the planes --- well, so there was darkness under Leyte, and the surface troops also took part in the battle.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 October 2012 09: 29
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    See paragraph on crew quality.

                    And it’s not yet clear that the inexperienced crew and the lack of fuel and ammunition of the air group or the experienced crew and full tanks of aviation gasoline, holds full of bombs and torpedoes are worse
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 October 2012 16: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      full gasoline tanks, holds full of bombs and torpedoes

                      Yes you are! belay In%, the aircraft carrier is several times less fuel and shells than the cruiser.

                      In major Essex - 700 tons of gasoline and 600 tons of bombs.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 16: 26
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes you are!

                        Ага.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        times less fuel and shells than on a cruiser.

                        I have never listened to the cruiser to explode after several hours from the explosion of fuel vapor.

                        And the very fact that there was no jet fuel or ammunition on Sinano, which could accelerate his death.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 19: 48
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        I have never listened to the cruiser to explode after several hours from the explosion of fuel vapor.

                        I have never heard that an aircraft carrier explode for no reason)))
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 20: 51
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I have never heard that an aircraft carrier explode for no reason)))



                        Is it something that happens for no reason? Or are you talking about accidents that often happened to aircraft carriers))))))))))))

                        On March 27, the 1943 dasher sank as a result of a gas explosion at the mouth of the Clyde River. 378 people died. Severely damaged, not restored

                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 16: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes you INTO! belay In% of the aircraft carrier at times less fuel and projectiles than the cruiser.

                        It's right. Here are just comrades who have done calculations of the ratio of the masses of gasoline, bombs, etc. for an aircraft carrier and compared those with a battleship / cruiser, they completely lost sight of the fact that the artillery ship had no gasoline at all (and oil is "a little" different, and the ammunition is hidden in the depths of the ship - their delivery to the guns is carried out through transporters covered with barbets, traditionally having very thick armor (barbets are getting thinner down, of course, but onboard booking comes into play there) But an aircraft carrier, which must be supplied with that de gasoline at least on the hangar (and as a rule - on the flight) deck and ammunition there does not have any adequate protection of gas lines and ammunition supply systems
                      5. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 19: 54
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        artillery ship has no gasoline at all

                        Most modern ships are GTE
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and oil is "a little" different

                        The difference is hardly noticeable. Battleships and cruisers burned in combat like matches
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and the ammunition is hidden in the very depths of the ship - their delivery to the guns is carried out through conveyors covered with barbets

                        Nobody argues, the battleship, in theory, has higher protection, but the aircraft carrier is even better protected. Aircraft carrier armor - duralumin sides of its aircraft
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 20: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Most modern ships are GTE

                        And when did we suddenly jump onto modern ships?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The difference is hardly noticeable. Battleships and cruisers burned in combat like matches

                        Won how? laughing Can you tell us on which battleships / cruisers the fuel was burning? And what specific battleships / cruisers burned in matches like matches?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Nobody argues, the battleship, in theory, has higher protection,

                        The battleship in practice has orders of magnitude better design protection. What aircraft carrier often does not have.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Aircraft carrier armor - duralumin aircraft

                        Right. But the fact that the aircraft carrier is extremely vulnerable to the effects of virtually any type of ammunition does not disprove it.
                      7. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 21: 06
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Can you tell me on which battleships / cruisers the fuel was burning?

                        The surrounding ships - primarily the stern of the battleship Tennessee, which was only 20 meters away - were covered with burning debris. At Tennessee, this "rain of fire" and the spilled burning oil caused more trouble than the Japanese bombs ...

                        ... near the wall of the Admiralty Plant, the battleship "Poltava" there was a strong fire, which turned out to be fatal for the ship ... According to him, the fire started in the second hour of the day, in the first stoker (the first bow boiler compartment, three boilers of which had oil heating) and lasted xnumx hours

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The battleship in practice has orders of magnitude better STRUCTURAL protection

                        Battleships were fueled like puppies ... paradox ??
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But the fact that the aircraft carrier is extremely vulnerable to the effects of almost any type of ammunition does not refute this.

                        Thanks to fuel and airplanes, the aircraft carrier gets its unique capabilities. You have to choose between a shield and a sword. Life is always a choice
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 21: 33
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Surrounding ships

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        at the wall of the Admiralty Plant, battleship

                        these are not characteristic events - while aircraft carriers burned more often and the consequences were worse.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Battleships were fueled like puppies ... paradox ??

                        What is the paradox? And how who or what drowned 50 aircraft carriers?
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 22: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Surrounding ships - primarily the stern of the battleship "Tennessee",

                        You seemed to be talking about fires? And what have the description of the explosion of the Arizona BC do not tell?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        At Tennessee, this "rain of fire" and the spilled burning oil caused more trouble than the Japanese bombs ...

                        Naturally - big ones. Because 2 bombs that hit Tennessee delivered the battleship a minimum of trouble
                        One of the bombs exploded on the left (according to other information on
                        on average) the guns of the N2 turret, killing and injuring many
                        new crews at open posts ... ... The second bomb, converted from an armor-piercing 356-mm projectile, hit the roof of the N3 turret and, breaking through 127 mm armor, exploded inside the fighting compartment, albeit with insignificant effect ... " That is, it most likely did not explode at all. ("Big Five" S. Suliga)
                        So what was burning like matches there? Sorry, but the burning of oil that spilled AFTER the death of Arizona is "a little" of the wrong opera
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        According to him, the fire started in the second hour of the day, in the first stoker (the first, fore boiler room, three boilers of which had oil heating) and lasted 12 hours

                        I'm going to kill the wall. "Poltava"! A ship without a crew on conservation!
                        Bravo!:))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Battleships were fueled like puppies ... paradox ??

                        How puppies were heated aircraft carriers. Battleships generally required far more bombs and torpedo hits.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You have to choose between a shield and a sword.

                        That is why it is not necessary to absolutize the protection of the aircraft carrier
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 22: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The second bomb, converted from an armor-piercing 356-mm projectile, hit the roof of the N3 turret and, having penetrated 127 mm of armor, exploded inside the fighting compartment, albeit with insignificant effect ... "- that is, most likely it did not explode at all. (" Large five "S. Suliga)



                        Not familiar with such an enthusiast?
                        http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/tennesy3.htm
                      11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 23: 21
                        +2
                        Personally - no, but I came across this article in the internet.
                        But even without the article: "the insignificant effect of the rupture of a 356-mm projectile" is, you know, at least strange.
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 23: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Personally - no, but I came across this article on the Internet

                        Well, I personally did not expect it, sometimes this author has interesting ideas and thoughts.
                      13. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 23: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/tennesy3.htm

                        You can talk about armor penetration for a long time, meticulously calculate damage, measure potholes and admire the security of battleships

                        The only fact is this: like Putin's "She drowned")))))
                        In addition, there were dozens of deaths of super-duper battleships right at the pier. Even torpedoes were not required))))) Why then all the arguments about the thickness of the armored belt? All arguments of armor lovers are in fact not serious - there is nothing to discuss. Battleships in fact at the bottom.
                      14. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 23: 49
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Battleships in fact at the bottom.

                        Why?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        super-duper battleships right at the pier

                        Ammunition is quite dangerous. It’s a pity that they immediately appeared on aircraft carriers after decades of experimenting with them and are relatively safe, but they also burn out from one zuni.

                        Quote: Kars
                        On March 27, the 1943 dasher sank as a result of a gas explosion at the mouth of the Clyde River. 378 people died. Severely damaged, not restored

                        Comes to cetate yourself))

                        And the battleships at the bottom are not de facto, and not even de jure as you would like. At least a couple more by the way))))
                      15. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 02: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why?

                        They died for various reasons. Most often they were sunk by deck aircraft.
                        Just a fact, take it for granted))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        but even so they burn out from one zuni.

                        Eh, zuni, zuni ...
                        "Admiral Senyavin" June 13 1978 year after 8 volleys on the first gun of the first turret pass. For unclear reasons, the calculation switched from automatic loading to manual, turned off two shutter locks. Next, the bolt was opened and a shell prepared for the tenth shot was sent to the barrel, where he crushed the charge of the ninth shot. There was a terrible fire in the tower. The explosion of the ammunition cellar was prevented by the flooding of this cellar, and the fire was extinguished by regular fire extinguishing systems. As a result, 37 people died ...


                        .... 9.4.1989 during a firing practice in the Caribbean Sea on "Iowa" there was an explosion in tower # 2; killed 47 people. The ship was not restored. January 26, 1990 withdrawn to the reserve.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Dasher 27 March 1943 drowned as a result of a gas explosion at the mouth of the Clyde River

                        One case against TWENTY

                        Are you talking about gas lines and the fire hazard of Essex))))))))))
                      16. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 13: 10
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Died for various reasons

                        What class of warships that did not die?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Eh, zuni, zuni ...

                        having missed the super Aircraft Carrier))))) and you can bring a state of emergency as much as you like; it will not change anything ---- planes more often butts and even aircraft carriers (although you certainly begin that planes do not compare ships with ships - but in the case of an aircraft carrier this is his ammunition, he shoots airplanes - and how many tomkets without a war broke?)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Are you talking about gas pipelines and fire hazard?

                        20 cases of non-combat munitions explosions? After what year?
                        and gas pipelines and pazharas are the scourge of aircraft carriers - such as Japanese aircraft carriers that were not burnt in Midway.
                      17. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 October 2012 00: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        All arguments of armor lovers are in fact not serious - there is nothing to discuss. Battleships in fact at the bottom.

                        And what if there were aircraft carriers in the place of the dead battleships - would they survive? laughing
                        Taicho (29,3 thousand tons) was killed by one torpedo launched from a submarine, Khie (24,2 thousand tons) killed 2 aircraft torpedoes, Soryu and Hiryu (15,9 and 17 thousand tons) - 3 and 4 454-kg bombs, Kaga (34 thousand tons ) - 4 454 kg of bombs, Akagi (Already 36 thousand tons) - 2 (in words) TWO 454-kg bombs!
                        American "Lexington" (36 thousand tons) - 2 torpedoes and 2 bombs!
                        Old Ripals (28 thousand tons) needed 5 air torpedoes and 1 bomb, Prince of Wells (about 38 thousand tons) - needed 6 air torpedoes and 1 bomb. And these are frankly weak British.
                        But the same Scharnhorst (31 thousand tons) received 13 heavy 356-mm shells and 11 torpedoes.
                        What are you talking about, in general?
                      18. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 23: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Sorry, but the burning of oil that spilled AFTER the death of Arizona is "a little" of the wrong opera

                        This is from that very opera. Oil burns perfectly - it could not be put out for several days
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The ship without crew was on conservation!

                        There was a crew in Poltava; The battleship was somehow extinguished after half a day by joint efforts with the firemen of Petrograd. Oil is no less combustible material than gasoline.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        How puppies drowned aircraft carriers

                        I do not know a single case of the death of an aircraft carrier in the base.
                        About battleships on the move I will call 10 cases.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is why it is not necessary to absolutize the protection of the aircraft carrier

                        In our remy aircraft carriers are better protected than any ship
                      19. Kars
                        Kars 21 October 2012 23: 55
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I do not know a single case of the death of an aircraft carrier in the base.

                        Does Kura say something?

                        Amagi 24 and 28 of July 1945 were severely damaged by aircraft of the 38 Operational Connection in Kura. 29 of June capsized on the starboard side and sank in shallow water.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In our remy aircraft carriers are better protected than any ship

                        In addition to the Iowa class battleships, it will be rejected if you so want to go deep into the boundless --- a nuclear strike on Norfolk, etc., is not possible (this is not a direct hit naturally)
                        And by the way, what will happen in a decent storm?
                      20. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 01: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Does Kura say something?

                        There was an enemy attack.

                        Mikasa, Leonardo, Imp. Maria, Novorossiysk, Mutsu, Vengard (1917), Jaime - do you know what unites them? wink
                      21. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 13: 12
                        0
                        Accidents, only one thing BUT ---- then the aircraft carriers were? Can we remember the sailboats? They burned out from the candle - but at the same time they were the masters of the seas))))))
                      22. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 14: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        ---- Then were the aircraft carriers?

                        There were. Aircraft carriers have been sailing the ocean for 90 years. And just one accident. One - against TWENTY "super-protected" battleships.

                        In short, you screwed up today. And admit it.))))
                      23. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 16: 07
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In short you screwed up today

                        Well, why are you doing this? You’ve been speaking for 90 years? What year is it? Are we going to consider Langley?
                        And so is Mikasa the battleship.
                        Empress Maria, Leonardo and Novorossiys is the work of saboteurs most likely.

                        And you vryatli know all accidents with aircraft carriers
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        One is against TWENTY

                        And let's all the same all 20, for the sake of interest - only 7 so far and whatever your life would seem like raspberries, we will exclude armadillos.
                        And now you have to prove that YOU are not screwed up.
                        Although the funniest thing I don’t understand what it is? When it came to BATTLE damage that could have been on Sinano more when it was equipped with ammunition and AVI fuel. By the way, even in the death of the battleships the oil did not lead once, and I brought you an explosion of gasoline vapors) )
                      24. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 19: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, why are you like that?

                        Well, how else? There was a very funny argument, and your excuses for battleships, sorry, do not roll

                        Quote: Kars
                        You say 90 years? This is from what year? Are we really going to count Langley?

                        Akagi and Lexington - they appeared 87 years ago.
                        Although you can dig deeper - up to Langley and Ark Royal (which is a hydrocarrier). More than 90 years of active operation, hundreds of designs, one accidental death.
                        Battleships only for the first half of the twentieth century 10 self-destructed once (we discard armadillos) and killed thousands of people. Powder barrels))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Empress Maria, Leonardo and Novorossiys is the work of saboteurs most likely.

                        Novorossiysk - not proven, 2 obvious sabotage, the remaining 12 cases to which we write?))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, even in the deaths of battleships, oil has never led, and I brought you an explosion of gasoline vapors

                        On the battleships there is a more terrible explosive and fire hazardous substance - gunpowder
                      25. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 19: 24
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Well, how else? There was a very funny argument

                        WHAT?

                        And all the same, it turns out you crawled, and in full.
                        It’s not your fate that you can prove in articles after our disputes.

                        Not even I explained to you that a couple of Essexes could not cope with the same thing that a dozen aircraft carriers did.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        2 obvious sabotage, the remaining 12 cases on which we write off?))))

                        Why do I need to write off something? The ships have died, but it does not give you anything.
                        Negotiating that we will not accept hydraavian carriers.
                        and aircraft carriers ---
                        In 1919, the US Department of the Navy decided to build the first American aircraft carrier, Langley. It was the former coal miner "Jupiter": the entire superstructure above the upper deck was cut off and a wooden take-off deck was installed above it from bow to stern on pillers

                        Now subtract from your list everything earlier than 1919 and bring 20 battleships forward.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        On the battleships there is a more terrible explosive and fire hazardous substance - gunpowder

                        There are, and not rare cases of detonation of cellars from mines and torpedoes, but again, this time it will not save YOU.
                      26. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 19: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        WHAT?

                        Battleships, despite their armor, are highly explosive designs
                        Quote: Kars
                        Not even I explained to you that a couple of Essexes could not cope with the same thing that a dozen aircraft carriers did.

                        The two Essexes, having made an effort, will sink the Yamato squadron. Three Essex drown Yamato without any problems (this was the article about it)
                        Quote: Kars
                        The ships died, but it doesn’t give you anything.

                        How does it not give?
                        The battleships perished in a very interesting way. Self-destructed
                        Quote: Kars
                        Now subtract from your list everything earlier than 1919 of the year

                        I won’t. The era of aircraft carriers lasted twice as long as the dreadnoughts. Hundreds of designs. (Iowa phenomenon does not count - 4 overgrowth stood in the crap)
                        Quote: Kars
                        There are, and not rare cases of detonation of cellars from mines and torpedoes, but again, this time it will not save YOU.

                        1 case of self-destruction of an aircraft carrier against 10 battleships ...
                        How to distinguish a black cat from a white one? Through the eyes!
                      27. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 20: 13
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        very explosive structures

                        This applies to any weapon, and aircraft carriers are much more explosive. Only modern technology has reduced this factor. You will begin to deny that you will have to bring in cases of undermining Ticonderoge rocket launchers.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Two Essexes Making an Effort

                        No, and this has already been decided.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Three Essex drown Yamato

                        Most likely, but not without problems.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        there was an article about it

                        why is this a lie?
                        could provide two heavy aircraft carriers

                        It’s TWO, and they won’t sink. It’ll hurt Yamato to be easier to adapt to Okinawa.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How does it not give?

                        It doesn’t, accidents and sabotage do not give you anything. In a campaign this has never happened.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I will not

                        SHOULD,
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The era of aircraft carriers lasted twice as long as the dreadnought

                        You can take before the death of Novorossiysk.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1 case of self-destruction of an aircraft carrier against 10 battleships

                        Already 10? It turns out you all the same messed up? Though I repeat where do the accidents happen? For some reason you are silent about the deaths of the planes, how many have died from accidents and accidents? And did you stick to this - the last straw?

                        And all the same, it will be honest if your next post on this topic will begin with a list of 20 dead battleships from 1919 (even though I can start from 1921) to 1955
                      28. Kars
                        Kars 22 October 2012 21: 07
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        own armor, very explosive designs

                        even this postulate is fundamentally wrong. There is nothing to do with the armor and construction of battleships or other artillery ships.

                        It's all about explosives and their quality. As well as the qualities of gunpowder.
                        And progress in their development has nothing to do with the design of ships.
                        Start equipping aerial bombs for aircraft carriers with picric acid, or shells for artillery installations with the first grades of pyroxylin would still see who explodes more often.
                      29. Santa Fe
                        24 October 2012 19: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Start equipping bombs for aircraft carriers with picric acid


                        But the fact of the matter is that the aircraft carrier did not need gunpowder, pyroxylin and picric acid ...
                      30. Kars
                        Kars 24 October 2012 23: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But the fact of the matter is that the aircraft carrier did not need gunpowder, pyroxylin and picric acid

                        And what does an aircraft carrier provide for flying pleasure aircraft?

                        Sorry, but in this particular case you went wrong. I gave the tablet the main bombings at the beginning of the twentieth century, so you are afraid to bring the bombings in the time frame I have indicated. There was human negligence in Mutsu, there were no cellars in Novorossiysk
                        Initial versions - the breakdown of a gas depot or artillery cellars - were noted almost immediately. The capacities of the gas depot on the battleship were empty long before the disaster. As for the cellars, if they had pulled away, there would have been little left of the battleship, and five more cruisers standing next to them would have flown into the air. Moreover, this version was immediately overturned by the testimonies of the sailors, the place of military service of which was the 2nd tower of the main artillery caliber, in the region of which the battleship received a hole. It was precisely established that 320 mm shells remained intact.


                        So I don’t understand why you got into this?

                        And correct me, but is it all on the aircraft carrier? And is it really equipped with concrete? Instead of trotyl? In the place of gunpowder, what?
                      31. Santa Fe
                        25 October 2012 00: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And is it really equipped with concrete? Instead of trotyl? In the place of gunpowder, what?

                        I'm not special on explosives, but numerous stories indicate that explosives are hard to activate without a detonator

                        Regarding the NURS - there is a tightly sealed powder checker inside the rocket body - this is not a paper "cap" with powder for loading a 15 'gun (as far as I represent from the video with Iowa shooting - the guns are loaded with several "bags" of gunpowder)
                        Quote: Kars
                        you are afraid to bring explosions to the time frame indicated by me

                        Sorry, what are we talking about?
                        Quote: Kars
                        On Mutsu human negligence

                        What difference does it make - the cellars exploded, the battleship at the bottom.
                        It’s funny, of course, that without any enemy intervention
                      32. Kars
                        Kars 25 October 2012 00: 17
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I'm not special in explosives

                        It can be seen.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        it’s hard to activate explosives without a detonator

                        It depends on some --- for example picric acid and its picrates at a time.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        tightly sealed powder bomb inside the rocket body

                        and this is decomposition from chemical impurities during nitration of pyroxelin to a light bulb
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        this is not a paper "cap" with gunpowder

                        Well, he, too, without a spark, does not catch fire.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sorry, what are we talking about?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Now subtract from your list everything earlier than 1919 and bring 20 battleships forward.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I won’t. The era of aircraft carriers lasted twice as long

                        Quote: Kars
                        SHOULD,

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What difference does it make - the cellars exploded, the battleship at the bottom.

                        Big, we are of little interest without the enemy, we are just interested in the intervention of the enemy, how did you start trying to cover up the sinking of Shinano.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Who cares - the cellars exploded

                        Well, you, too, an aircraft carrier exploded from gasoline vapors in a non-combat situation))

                        And once again, I repeat --- you severely misbehaved, and designs and armor and barbets have nothing to do with this))))
                        It so often happens that upon arrival of a ship at a port not only the tension inherent in a long voyage instantly drops, but sometimes even elementary vigilance. Perhaps, for this reason, such an unpleasant thing as spontaneous combustion of nitrocellulose gunpowder, as a rule, does not happen at sea, but at the place where the vessel was parked. One way or another, but the commander of the French battleship “Yen” showed obvious carelessness, when, putting his ship on a dry dock for repair, he did not bother to unload the ammunition ashore. Moreover, during the repair, the cellar cooling system was dismantled. And then, on March 12, 1907, smoke suddenly fell from the feed store of 100-mm shells. In time, it was impossible to flood the compartment with the ship standing in the dock, and the flame quickly spread to the stern, approaching the storage location of 305-mm shells. A minute - and a powerful explosion turned the modern battleship into a pile of metal. 118 killed and 35 wounded - this is the result of the first of two Toulon tragedies, which in peacetime reduced the fleet of France by two battleships.


                      33. Kars
                        Kars 25 October 2012 00: 18
                        0
                        But here's what is surprising: it was precisely to the smithereens of the destroyed “Yen” that the mission fell to draw a line under half a century of parity in the struggle between shell and armor. In 1909, the French used the body of the crippled armadillo as a target for testing elongated 305 mm armor-piercing shells. The shooting results exceeded all expectations. The new shell weighed 435 kg and had a charge of 13 kg of melinite, while the previously used 335-kg shells were equipped with only 8 kg of explosives. Thanks to the hardened tip and high initial speed (875 m / s), the projectile easily pierced the main yen belt, and the new fuse provided an explosion behind the armor, causing huge damage inside the ship. High-explosive thin-walled shells stuffed with a large amount of explosives (up to 15% of the weight of the projectile) and brought victory to Admiral Togo turned out to be helpless when shelling the "Yen". So through trial and error, the optimal type of shell was finally developed, which soon found distribution in all fleets of the world.
                      34. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 23: 58
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is from that very opera. Oil burns perfectly - it could not be put out for several days

                        That's just it burns AFTER the battleship has gone into another world. And on the battleship, which is still alive and fighting, the oil is not burning. Well, there were no such cases. even when a heavy shell hits an oil storage tank - it’s not burning, and that’s it. (as is the case with Bismarck) A completely different thing is an aircraft carrier with gas pipelines everywhere.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There was a crew in Poltava;

                        Shifts were carried on, but there was no crew. When the ship is on conservation, it does not have a crew - except for those very watchmen (two dozen per ship) to be considered a crew.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I do not know a single case of the death of an aircraft carrier in the base.
                        About battleships on the move I will call 10 cases.

                        And I do not know a single case of the death of a Scandinavian combat boat in the base during WWII. So maybe the Scandinavian boat is the most powerful and well-protected ship? laughing
                        Now, if you said - "out of 20 battleships attacked in the base, 10 sank, and out of 10 aircraft carriers - not a single one" it would still make some sense.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In our remy aircraft carriers are better protected than any ship

                        Firstly, this is a very controversial postulate, and secondly, given the fact that it’s not surprisingly equal, but at least comparable in size to aircraft carriers, surface combat ships. And thirdly, what does the survivability of modern aircraft carriers have to do with WWII times ?!
                      35. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 01: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Now, if you said - "out of 20 battleships attacked in the base, 10 sank, and out of 10 aircraft carriers - not a single one" it would still make some sense.

                        The bases were 20 aircraft carriers and 20 battleships. 10 battleships drowned. Just. Self-destructed.

                        Why after this long talk about gas lines)))
                      36. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 October 2012 07: 08
                        +1
                        Merge the topic?
                      37. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 14: 38
                        0
                        I have to ask you this question:
                        Mikasa, Leonardo, Imp. Maria, Novorossiysk, Mutsu, Vengard (1917), Jaime - what unites them?
                      38. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 October 2012 16: 16
                        +1
                        Ammunition explosion. So what?
                      39. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 18: 47
                        0
                        I can continue the list: Bulvork (768 people died), Akvidaban, Bendetto Brin (400 victims), Kawachi, Yen, Liberté
                        It turns out super-protected battleships in fact explosive powder kegs))))

                        Despite all doubts about the gas lines of aircraft carriers, nothing like this happens on them
                      40. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 October 2012 22: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It turns out super-protected battleships in fact explosive powder kegs))))

                        Ah ha especially the boulevard. and Benedetto Brin. That's it - battleships for all battleships laughing laughing laughing
                        And you are a big dreamer, my friend. Maybe we’ll also remember the sailing fleet? :))) You can’t compare white with soft, you can not compare ships of different technological eras.
                        In fact, the battleships built after the WWII should be considered akin to the technical level of the aircraft carriers of the classical scheme. Of these, the EMNIP killed one - Mutsu. That's all the statistics, however.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Despite all doubts about the gas lines of aircraft carriers, nothing like this happens on them

                        Just the same happens all the time - in battle. For some reason, you forgot that ships are not built to stand in the harbor, but for war
                      41. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 22: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That's all the statistics, however.

                        Do not have another one. No matter how you spin the numbers - the fact remains, the battleships self-destructed
                        I don’t know a single similar case about aircraft carriers
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        For some reason, you forgot that ships are not built to stand in the harbor, but for war

                        What a war they are if they self-explode in a peaceful harbor, taking with them hundreds of human lives. That's all armored belts and barbets)))
                      42. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 October 2012 23: 51
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Do not have another one. No matter how you spin the numbers - the fact remains, the battleships self-destructed

                        Yeah. Here they themselves took and rrraz - self-exploded, self-drowned and self-burned.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What a war they are if they self-explode in a peaceful harbor, taking with them hundreds of human lives. That's all armored belts and barbets)))

                        What kind of war are they? :))) Yes, it’s been said 100500 times, which one. Crete. The English squadron of 4 LC 1 AB without aircraft, 8 light cruisers, 3 air defense cruisers and 30 destroyers against 716 Luftwaffe aircraft. Fights go on for several days. Result - 2 cruisers, 1 air defense cruiser, 6 destroyers (ships that went out from under the cover of battleships) were sunk. The aircraft carrier was completely out of order, the 2 battleship received moderate damage. Not a single Deutsch to Crete from the sea before the end of the battle did not land.
                        The battle at Leyte Gulf - 256 aircraft attack the Kurita squadron - 5 battleships, 7 heavy cruisers 2 light cruisers and EMNIP 14 destroyers, with attacks coming from morning until late at night. result - Musashi sunk, damaged (without loss of combat capability) Nagato and Yamato. The connection was not broken. But Ozawa with the aircraft carriers did not hold out against 58С even for half a day.
                      43. Kars
                        Kars 23 October 2012 00: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That they themselves took and rrraz - self-exploded, self-drowned and self-burned

                        Along the way, our author went into Atritsalovka, and confused the design of the ships with the properties and quality of ammunition and propellants, and it doesn’t even come to his attention that it was not the design of the aircraft carrier or its aircraft, but the progress in pyrotechnics made it impossible to see the explosions of the weapon cellars of aircraft carriers.


                        This seems to be an attempt to hook on the last straw of crumbling illusions.
                      44. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 October 2012 07: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Along the way, our author went to Atritsalovka

                        I fully agree :)))
                      45. borisst64
                        borisst64 22 October 2012 12: 57
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Most modern ships are GTE

                        About the majority you overdid my friend.
                      46. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 18: 54
                        0
                        Quote: borisst64
                        About the majority you overdid my friend.

                        Specific examples?
      2. Kars
        Kars 23 October 2012 20: 16
        0
        Quote: Kars
        The aircraft carrier Shinano was all that was needed.
  7. Kars
    Kars 20 October 2012 14: 16
    +1
    The war in the Pacific, starting with the battleship pogrom in Pearl Harbor, ended with the triumphal sinking of the most powerful battleship on the planet


    Quite a trivial remark. The war in the Pacific ended after Midway, the rest was done by the US industry. Although the Yankees tried to tighten it as much as possible with their mistakes.
    Deck aviation amazingly effectively dealt with any enemy on the coast


    A ridiculous phrase is that more airplanes can be concentrated on land. And even air defense means they will go bankrupt with land carriers.

    From now on, the most stubborn skeptics understood

    If this is for me, then what is clear then?

    Do not forget that in the first (most numerous) wave, the Japanese squadron was attacked by only 150 deck aircraft


    Here it is more worth not to forget the composition of air groups by type of aircraft.

    raid occurred in bad weather

    More related to the quality of navigators.

    If two aircraft carriers were used, the result would have been the same, but, of course, such a course of events would take much longer - Yamato would be heated until the evening. In any case, a quite obvious conclusion follows from this story - aviation plays a decisive role in modern naval combat.


    Already two? One does not channel? Super aircraft carrier?
    The whole outcome depends on how Yamato can knock out the thorn-bearers,
    And in modern naval combat, the crucial decisive role is played not by aviation, but by a more prosaic thing ---- BABY, MONEY, DOLLARS))))
    Without them, the average country of the Rosarys BEFORE naval battle)))))))
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 15: 13
      0
      Quote: Kars
      The war in the Pacific ended after Midway, the rest was done by the US industry. Although the Yankees tried to tighten it as much as possible with their mistakes.

      The same as the Eastern Front ended after the Kursk Bulge
      Quote: Kars
      more planes can be concentrated on land

      Aircraft carriers have broken the Japanese defensive perimeter on the islands
      Quote: Kars
      Here it is more worth not to forget the composition of air groups by type of aircraft.

      One third of torpedo bombers. Two-thirds of divers and fighters
      Quote: Kars
      More related to the quality of navigators.

      They mess everything up, that's fine. Someone said that the war will be won by those whose mistakes will be less frightening
      Quote: Kars
      Super aircraft carrier?

      Just an Essex-class heavy strike aircraft carrier
      Quote: Kars
      Already two?

      Do not you agree?
      Quote: Kars
      And in modern naval combat

      If we take the present, then a major war is impossible - the world is provided by the merger of capital and technology
      But not so long ago aircraft carriers distinguished themselves in the Falklands ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 October 2012 18: 28
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But not so long ago aircraft carriers distinguished themselves in the Falklands ...

        Where? Almost a breakdown is it called? They distinguished themselves by not talking about the use of American airfields.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Aircraft carriers have broken the Japanese defensive perimeter on the islands

        Alone? And would we really get rid of the accounts of strategists?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        One third of torpedo bombers

        And how much does it take to recruit 100 torpedo bombers?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Someone said that the war will be won by those whose mistakes will be less frightening

        To the Yankees it is not a thing, just industrial power and all.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Do not you agree?

        Nope, most likely Yamato would reach his destination and become a submerged coastal battery.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        then a major war is impossible

        Yes, even a small war the size of Iraq 1991 will financially ruin any separately taken country (except the one with a printing press) if it is waged using aircraft carriers.
        1. Santa Fe
          20 October 2012 19: 41
          -2
          Quote: Kars
          Almost a break it is called distinguished?

          Great Britain won the war
          Quote: Kars
          One third of torpedo bombers. Are you sure?

          Yes, 97 pieces.
          Quote: Kars
          And how much does it take to recruit 100 torpedo bombers?

          Theoretically, they can be easily placed on two Essexes - the composition of the air group could be easily rebalanced - it's not the old cannons on the battleship that can be uprooted and modernized
          Quote: Kars
          To the Yankees it is not a thing, just industrial power and all.

          This also does not apply to the USSR. Just filling up with corpses and all))))
          Quote: Kars
          Nope, most likely Yamato would reach his destination

          I wouldn’t get it. As Bismarck, Ripals and Prince Wells, Dorsetshire and Cornwell, Koenigsberg, Ise, Musashi, etc. did not reach.
          1. Kars
            Kars 20 October 2012 20: 56
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Great Britain won the war

            ridiculed. I can still agree that Argentina lost her, but Britain)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Theoretically them

            Why theoretically? We have practical standard air groups, from which we proceed. So you can load yamato holds with wood, unload main-caliber shells,
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This also does not apply to the USSR

            It relates, the relative - it is not necessary to exaggerate the human resources of the USSR, and the production ones are all the more so --- and there is no need to bring tanks, if the Germans were to build T-34, they would have built them more.
            But what does it look like Stalingrad or Bargation, the defense of Sevastopol and the Yankees are not close. Africa for example, in general, is a failure, though scrap metal.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Would not have reached

            To Okinawa zatopitsa? Against two Essexes? Who vryatli second wave could turn up?
            Let us assume in real life that for self-defense on aircraft carriers it was customary to leave aircraft, 20% of the shock wave will not find the target. 5% will not return, and 30% will be damaged.
        2. Santa Fe
          21 October 2012 19: 59
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Yes, even a small war the size of Iraq 1991 will financially ruin any separately taken country (except the one with a printing press) if it is waged using aircraft carriers.


          This is said by lovers of battleships))))))) Which almost ruined all the powers at the beginning of the twentieth century.)))))
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 October 2012 20: 56
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Which almost ruined all the powers at the beginning of the twentieth century.)))))

            It happens.
            But modern aircraft carriers are even more gifted and even more worthless.
            Here recently they post about the nemits --- 160 mil dollars per year, and this is without flights and salaries)) you know how even a passenger car needs to be kept))
            1. Santa Fe
              22 October 2012 02: 05
              0
              Quote: Kars
              and even more worthless.

              at least they are participating in the battle. And Hermes and Invincible saved the squadron)))
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 October 2012 13: 16
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And Hermes and Invincible saved the squadron)))

                Saved? They gave her to crush --- only the malfunctions of the Argentinean ammunition RESCUE the English squadron.
                Container carriers are no worse than aircraft carriers.
  8. Delta
    Delta 20 October 2012 15: 09
    +4
    Against one single battleship, the Americans put up a dozen aircraft carriers. Shame on the US Navy!

    I don’t understand what, in fact, a shame. Was it really necessary to set against the unity of the Japanese only equal forces and in no case to exceed them? or destroyers rush like a bare heel on a saber? it’s the same as Russia was reproached for pushing Georgians with superior forces
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 15: 17
      0
      Everything is right there. it's irony
    2. Delta
      Delta 20 October 2012 21: 32
      +2
      already mininusili, pseudo-patriots. I will not expect justification - it is useless
  9. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 15: 24
    +2
    What can be a shame to the winners? Already a strange question ...
    And why is it strange that if one and a half hundred planes fly off in one place, then some limited number of anti-aircraft guns with more than limited capabilities CANNOT cope with them?
    But with the two British, the Japanese managed even easier - so what?
    Give one a shield and another a sword, and look at the result - who will win? Of course, there is a chance that the shield owner will be able to bless the enemy according to the bulldozer, but this probability tends to zero ...
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2012 15: 31
      -2
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      if one and a half hundred planes fly into one place, then a limited number of anti-aircraft guns WILL NOT be able to cope with them

      Yes, it turned out that even half a dozen anti-aircraft guns cannot protect the squadron
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 17: 34
        +1
        What fifty thousand?
        We’ll not consider the guns of the main caliber - this is exotic, those shells ...
        12 mid-caliber installations - what is it against such a cloud of aircraft? This line at medium distances is overcome at times ...
        52 installations of small caliber - it seems to sound, but if you look? The guns themselves are complete bullshit, almost the worst representatives of this class of artillery! Half of the installations will most likely not be involved, because attacks on the one hand against torpedo bombers are almost useless, against dive bombers too ...
        Escort will not help either, because it’s not able to protect itself properly ...
        1. Santa Fe
          20 October 2012 18: 00
          0
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          52 installation of small caliber - it sounds like, but if you look?

          One hundred sixty two installations

          Quote: Brother Sarich
          12 medium-caliber installations -

          24 x127 mm equipment in 12 towers
          6 x155 mm guns in 6 towers

          Quote: Brother Sarich
          Escort will not help either, because it’s not able to protect itself properly ...

          This is another three hundred anti-aircraft guns

          In general, the result was logical - air defense is powerless against a well-planned attack
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 18: 38
            +1
            Everywhere it is indicated that 52 installations on 3 trunks - there were no 162 installations ...
            155 mm guns were replaced by 127 mm, because they could not shoot at air targets ...
            And on the 300 escort there were no anti-aircraft guns ...
            Even if there was no plan, such a mass of aircraft will fulfill the task - under normal conditions, this is an aviation force of almost a whole front ......
            1. Santa Fe
              20 October 2012 19: 32
              0
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              Everywhere it is indicated that the 52 installation on the 3 trunk

              so much by the end of the war was on the Japanese destroyers)))
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              155 mm guns were replaced by 127 mm, because they could not shoot at air targets ...

              6 installations left
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              And on the 300 escort there were no anti-aircraft guns ...

              It was. On one destroyer air defense of more 50.
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              such a mass of aircraft will fulfill the task - under normal conditions, this is an aviation force of almost a whole front ......

              Not always. 132 aircraft of the Baltic Fleet participated in the sinking of the cruiser Niobe and succeeded only a hundred times. Despite the fact that the port of Kotka was protected by only 60 anti-aircraft guns, and the cruiser was anchored
              1. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 20: 18
                +1
                Well, why invent something? 52 installations will not fit into any destroyer, unless the machine guns are fastened to the leeers, and even then it will be cramped ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  20 October 2012 22: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Brother Sarich
                  52 installations will not fit into any destroyer, unless the machine guns are fastened to the leeers, and even then it will be cramped ...


                  Air defense destroyers such as "Akzuki" ("shining moon") - read, be surprised
                  Ordinary destroyers, of course, carried slightly less anti-aircraft guns - 25 ... 30 units.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 22: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    It was. On one destroyer air defense of more 50.

                    You are wrong. not 50 installations, but 51 barrels, on some of the Akitsuki. But in general, even on Akitsuki, they set up to 5 nominally, and taking into account the "freelance" - 12-15 installations
                  2. Brother Sarych
                    Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 22: 20
                    0
                    The installation size is 3 by 3 meters, so MUCH will not fit, even if you put it right ...
                    Trunks and installations do not need to be confused, otherwise you and the four maxims will give the impression of wild firepower, if you also count the number of bullets produced per unit time, but they are almost harmless to eroplans ....
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 22: 10
                +2
                On Yamato (in the last battle) there were 50 three-barreled 25-mm mounts (26-closed and 24-open), as well as 2 single-barreled 25-mm mounts. * (Based on the monograph by Kofman "Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi"

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                It was. On one destroyer air defense of more 50.

                You are wrong. not 50 installations, but 51 barrels, on some of the Akitsuki. But in general, even on Akitsuki they set up to 5 nominally, and taking into account the "freelance" - 12-15 installations.
  10. ICT
    ICT 20 October 2012 21: 44
    +3
    WHERE TO THEN in one of the parallel worlds
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 21: 55
    +5
    The battle was not there, but there was a beating of the Japanese warrant by many times superior forces. The number of anti-aircraft artillery barrels is of no particular importance, since the naval battles of WWII clearly showed that it was not the quantity and the performance characteristics of the guns, but the quality of their SLA that were primary. And with the OMS, the Japs had problems, and large ones, with the exception of the 25-mm automata, but the automata themselves there were no good at all ... If the battle went by roughly equal forces (battleship of battleships against aircraft carrier squadron), the result would be somewhat different . Doubters can read about how 58OS fought with the Kurita squadron - his battleships dredged almost all daylight hours, and Musashi alone lost his losses, and that one died only because almost all the attacks of Americans by unhappy coincidence concentrated against one battleship.
    The talk that only the first wave of 150 aircraft was enough to destroy Yamato, while the others were "unnecessary", amused from the heart. Google to help, see what damage this first wave was able to inflict (hint - 2 (but most likely still 1) torpedo and several bombs on the battleship, EM was sunk and another EM received a 227-kg bomb. Oh, yes, I completely forgot - 2 127-mm missiles in the third EM)
    There are no complaints about the Americans. This is a war and not a knightly tournament, here 10 for one is the most it, so all of them, of course, did the right thing.
    The 3 of the Essex aircraft carrier at the end of the war was carried not by 100, but by 90 aircraft or less. But three Essex-type AVs probably would not have been enough to attack the 230-250 aircraft with planes, simply because the Essexs had difficulty raising the entire air group into the air (too long while the latter took off - the first time has already set, because the fuel is over) By the way, 3 AB type Essex are more expensive than one Yamato :)))
    1. ICT
      ICT 20 October 2012 22: 37
      0
      nevertheless, the quality of the Japanese shooting is depressing, it turns out that each ship shot down only one plane, a strange battle
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 23: 16
        +2
        Nothing so strange. Japanese 25-mm installation - even at the beginning of the war was not too good, more precisely - not at all good. Well, it’s not for nothing that the Britons and the Yankees built their near-air defense system on the basis of 40-mm bofors !. In fact, all that had a caliber of less than 37-mm was intended not so much for air defense as for raising the morale of the crew of rampant chatter :)))
        As for the more serious calibers - well, even the Americans spent an average of EMNIP around 600 127-mm shells with a radio fuse to shoot down one plane. And this is with American fire control systems ... And what should we talk about? And the result in 10 aircraft is not so bad. We somehow thought what would have happened if instead of Yamato an American Iowa had happened there :))) It turned out - would have shot down (with the escort) the order of the 20-25 aircraft.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 20 October 2012 23: 18
          0
          And from what criteria were they calculated? Density of fire per unit area?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 23: 34
            +1
            Not. They counted by the time the attacking aircraft stayed at the actual range of artillery fire of the corresponding calibers - well, and the performance characteristics of the guns / aircraft, of course, and the number of attacks and aircraft that they participated in were taken from combat descriptions
            Plus, there is evidence that the Americans took about 1 (well ... much more than 1000) conventional 900-mm projectiles to shoot down an 127 aircraft, but I’m not sure about the 600 radio detector, but I don’t remember the exact numbers; .
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 20 October 2012 23: 37
              0
              Just with the top mast bombing, I wouldn’t want me to be shot at least with a rifle.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 23: 54
                +1
                Naturally. But as far as I remember, the Americans did not use him in that battle - their dive bombers attacked from a gentle dive
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 20 October 2012 23: 56
                  0
                  Andrei, at the exit from the peak there is still an inertial drawdown, it’s just shocking me to have such a consumption of ammunition for one plane, especially a larger caliber. And were there no torpedo bombers?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 00: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    I am just shocked by the expense of the BC for one plane, especially for a larger caliber.

                    :))) Well, dear alex 241, I can’t help you. Look at the statistics of air battles. The same famous battle of the South Dakota in which it allegedly shot down as many as 26 Japanese planes (in real life, 26 planes shot down the entire American formation, including the losses of the Japanese from American fighters) The battleship went 1000 m behind the aircraft carrier and, as in a shooting range, shot down dive bombers "Enterprise" - but even in such completely polygon conditions, he shot down not much more than Yamato's anti-aircraft gunners.
                    However, in fairness, it must be said that on the day of the attack on Yamato it was very cloudy, and American planes literally "tumbled" out of the clouds onto the battleship, so the time for their shelling was much less than in normal visibility
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    And did not torpedo?

                    Of course they were.
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 21 October 2012 00: 21
                      0
                      Andrei, I agree here, it’s just that the results of the Midway match were different, although the main losses were from the actions of fighter aircraft.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 00: 29
                        +1
                        So the whole point is that aviation was mainly "frolicking" there. However, Midway's American anti-aircraft gunners did a very good job on the Japanese aircraft that stormed the island. But here you must always remember that a cannon on the ground is not at all the same as a cannon on a ship ...
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 21 October 2012 00: 33
                        0
                        During the course of the deck up to 3 meters, of course, keeping sight is still entertainment, but the Americans were not badly injured in that battle, to say the least .... 221 air group was destroyed.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 00: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        During the course of the deck to 3 meters of course keep the sight of something else entertainment

                        In-in, I about it :))
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        but the Americans in that battle battered weakly, if not more

                        Let's get it straight - 221 air group was rolled into a thin pancake. "Zero" Suganami tore the wildcats and buffalo like a hot water bottle. Because the level of training of American Marine Corps pilots was ... remember the anecdote? The question is, what does a female programmer have in common with a guinea pig? Answer: well, a guinea pig is not a pig, and not a guinea pig ... and so with the American marines at the beginning of the war, the same trouble was. Where are they against the Japanese elite of fighter aircraft?
                        But this has nothing to do with the issue of anti-aircraft artillery
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 21 October 2012 00: 53
                        +1
                        But nevertheless, if I am not mistaken, Yamamoto said: these people are dying like samurai .......... You are right about anti-aircraft artillery, it does not concern ...
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 01: 11
                        +2
                        In my opinion, you are still mistaken - said not Yamamoto (who generally hung out on Yamato far, far from the battle), but Nagumo, and not about fighter-marines, but about Waldron's torpedo bombers or some others. As a matter of fact, the American strike groups really showed heroism at that time - they went on the attack, although they had no chances under zero fire. Nevertheless, they did not turn off the combat course, they went as long as there was someone to go - until the last plane. The Japanese understood this, and therefore showed their respect. More than deserved, by the way.
                      6. Brother Sarych
                        Brother Sarych 21 October 2012 13: 44
                        0
                        Although, it is possible, this is a late legend, and the Japanese were not at all during the fighting ...
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 16: 32
                        +1
                        Not excluded, of course. But - quite possibly ... The Japanese, in their own Japan, even brought a museum to a cruiser, Varyag. For he showed clear bushido - he fought against the squadron, returned undefeated and in front of astonished public obviously superior forces contemptuously committed seppuku.
                      8. Santa Fe
                        21 October 2012 21: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        superior powers contemptuously committed seppuku

                        seppuku failed))))
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 22: 14
                        +1
                        Why didn't you succeed? Until the end of the war "Varyag" did not enter the system ... How could Rudnev know about how the war would end?
                      10. Santa Fe
                        22 October 2012 22: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Until the end of the war, the "Varyag" did not enter service ... But how could Rudnev know about how the war would end?


                        Of all the possible ways to destroy the ship, Rudnev chose the worst - flooding in shallow water. Any man in the street will tell you what it’s a little widespread - a ship in good condition will be surely lifted

                        So the Varangian is not a seppuku. This is a theatrical vein cutting by an 14-year-old nervous schoolgirl, purely to impress - the razor is all the same dull))))
    2. Kars
      Kars 20 October 2012 22: 41
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      that the essexes had difficulty lifting the entire air group into the air (too long before the last one takes off - it’s time for the first one to sit down, because the fuel has run out



      Thank you, I didn’t even think about it.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2012 23: 07
        +3
        Yes, there is nothing :))) What can I do :)))
      2. Santa Fe
        21 October 2012 16: 13
        0
        Quote: Kars
        that essexes had difficulty lifting the entire air group into the air


        2 catapults, rate of release - 1 aircraft per minute with each
        catapult fighters did not need
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 16: 26
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          2 catapults, rate of release - 1 aircraft per minute with each

          do not confuse the technical capacity of the catapult and the take-off rate of the aircraft with the AB. Googling on Essex - both catapults could not be used at the same time. And the time that it takes to roll the plane to the catapult is a little more than a minute.
          Let me remind you that aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class, having 4 catapults, are designed for 147 - 200 launches per day
        2. Kars
          Kars 21 October 2012 16: 28
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          2 catapults, rate of release - 1 aircraft per minute with each

          Well, I don’t know, I don’t know the words are not mine, but you yourself can hope to calculate how long it will take to form the air groups.
          not even talking about the fact that the two Essexes have only 72 torreds, that’s the way it is.
          1. Santa Fe
            21 October 2012 19: 39
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Well, I don’t know, I don’t know the words are not mine, but you yourself can hope to calculate how much time it will take to form air groups

            Even if we assume that each catapult is used, it will take 120 minutes to form a squadron of 40 aircraft (a third of them are fighters, and they don’t need a catapult, it’s also unnecessary to dive-bombers, because according to statistics only 40% of US Navy sorties were using catapults).

            The way to Yamato took 1,5 hours one way ...
            Quote: Kars
            all 72 torreds, that’s the way.

            On two Essexes in total 1200 tons of ammunition. Fill the hopper with whatever you want - depending on the task. good property Av smile
            1. Kars
              Kars 21 October 2012 21: 04
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              120 aircraft will take 40 minutes

              You count again
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              do not confuse the technical capacity of the catapult and the rate of take-off of aircraft with AB

              And already 120? Of which 40 fighters)))))) successes)))))))
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Fill the bunker than you want

              What joy is this?
              Even if 100 carriers will still not pick up
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              good property Av

              But it has nothing to do with it))))) Otherwise, I will fill the holds of Yamato logs and even better with welded token pipes, unload the offset and armor-piercing shells of all calibers, I will take a double command of anti-aircraft guns, or I will just send submarines))))) instead of Yamato .
  12. Diffiffiskeli
    Diffiffiskeli 20 October 2012 22: 26
    -1
    Our company has opened a vacancy for a remote manager
    on wholesale sales of metal. our company
    provides IP telephony to its remote managers
    for work with the Moscow region, as well as software
    software and related information materials.
    Responsibilities: receiving calls, active customer search,
    expansion and maintenance of the client base of the organization.
    Requirements: Confident PC user. Work in 1C 8,
    MSOffice, Internet. Full time, Monday -
    Friday from 9:30 to 18:00. Employee Location
    it doesn’t matter, work through the Internet and IP phone.
    Terms of payment:% of sales.
    Contact by email [email protected]
  13. nnz226
    nnz226 21 October 2012 01: 42
    +1
    Yes, the Americans preferred to throw heavy bombs and 406 mm shells at the enemy, rather than the corpses of their conscripts (it’s fair to say that this is a very correct approach to warfare).
    On Iwo Jima, defended by 2000 Japanese light-armed soldiers and 5000 armed workers (an analogue of Volkssturm) in 1945, despite the support of several aircraft carriers, battleships, and other cruisers with destroyers, the vaunted American marines for the first week of fighting in the surf (!!!) (i.e., not even moving deep into the island) lost 7000 killed !!! So the Americans did not know how to fight and do not know how ... And there is nothing to learn from them.
    And about bombs and shells, so in 1945 we already had a joke: "With 300 guns per kilometer of the front, the enemy is not reported!"
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 02: 06
      +1
      Quote: nnz226
      On Iwo Jima, protected by 2000 Japanese light-armed soldiers and 5000 armed workers (similar to Volkssturm)

      Strictly speaking, there were about 20 Japanese soldiers there and they had a tank regiment there. But with this in mind, this "amazing army" had to resist 000 thousand Americans ...
      Quote: nnz226
      despite the support of several aircraft carriers, battleships, and other cruisers with destroyers

      From 8 December 1944, US troops launched a massive bombardment of the island - almost 6 thousand tons of bombs were dropped on 70 days on Iwo Jima. And then yes, the artillery of battleships, cruisers, and so on, hundreds of bombers ... It seemed that nothing could survive on the island. And finally - landing. Which ... stumbles upon a dense fire and counterattack of the Japanese! On the first day, American casualties are on the order of 2,5 thousand people ...
      In general, who will say that the Americans knew how to fight and that they say, "they were throwing shells at the Japanese, not corpses" - to gnaw granite materiel URGENTLY :)))
      Quote: nnz226
      so in 1945, we already had a joke: "With 300 guns per kilometer of the front, they don't report the enemy!"

      The Americans, seeing the equipment of our troops, used the term "space" :)))
      1. Santa Fe
        21 October 2012 16: 15
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, who will say that the Americans knew how to fight and that they say, "they were throwing shells at the Japanese, not corpses" - to gnaw granite materiel URGENTLY :)))


        The fact remains that the loss of US Armed Forces personnel was 9 times smaller than the Japanese
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 October 2012 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The fact remains that the loss of US Armed Forces personnel was 9 times smaller than the Japanese

          American Iwo Jima Losses - 6800 people. How did the Japanese from the existing 21-22 thousand people maximum could lose 61 200 - a mystery to me
        2. Kars
          Kars 21 October 2012 16: 30
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          US forces were 9 times smaller than Japanese


          Well, there are no large-scale land battles in the Pacific Ocean, the advantage of the Yankees is not disputed. By the way, you even underestimated the composition of the 58th compound - 16 aircraft carriers and 18 escort aircraft carriers.

          So the losses are even large, relatively))))
  14. SenyaYa
    SenyaYa 21 October 2012 10: 07
    +1
    the battleship is a good thing, but you need to use it correctly .... now if Yamato covered 3-4 light aircraft
    donkey ... with AUG fully composed of fighters alone))) in several tiersov ... then it would be fun
  15. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 21 October 2012 17: 10
    +2
    Both a stunning ship and a brave crew deserve respect
  16. CARBON
    CARBON 21 October 2012 22: 00
    +3
    Better death in battle, even if suicidal, than to lie upwards with a keel in Scapa Flow. The Japanese could not surrender the last symbol of the fleet or give it to bomb in the database, they did not.
    And the Americans just did their job, performed professionally.
  17. Oles
    Oles 14 November 2012 14: 21
    0
    sank and fine .... the faster the better ..... it wasn’t a duel with him ... the Yankees did everything right .....