"Sevens": Soviet destroyers with cardboard hulls and rotten rivets?

Yes, we have come to a time when everything is in stock. Both sources of information and sources of misinformation. Moreover, there are many more of the latter, and not because their name is legion, but because it’s easier. As soon as one Zen figure, for example, writes something sublime, but does not correspond to reality, clones appear. Rewritten by neural networks, voiced and even with video.
Sometimes the authors of decent articles howl at this, completely not understanding where this fierce nonsense comes from. Why can’t we start from a normal article? So I don’t know. But since May 9 is approaching, and spring is strange this year, the exacerbation, apparently, has hit many people hard. That’s why the same Zen carefully throws in materials one more beautiful than the other.
Therefore, literally in a week I collected so many myths, moreover, modern ones, invented on my knee without using my head, that I decided to insert my two cents just for Victory Day. As an antithesis to those who write about what disgusting ships the “Sevens” were.

So, "sevens". Naturally, including the “improved” ones, because the difference was quite insignificant. The war showed that the linear or echelon placement of the units of a destroyer's power plant is not so important, since the ships were small, and a shell that flew into the boiler room caused very serious problems there.
So they punished the developers of the “Seven” completely in vain. Mainly destroyers in fleets all over the world were built with a linear arrangement, and those that were in echelon could not boast of such survivability: the same Italian “Grekale”, after a 152-mm shell from a British cruiser, was towed to the base, since the ship had completely lost its power. And “Vivaldi” was even less lucky; one 120-mm projectile from a British destroyer was enough for it to remain idle.
And similar cases can be found with destroyers of all navies without exception: the British Hunter, the American Cooper, and so on.

The prototype of the “sevens” was the Italian “Maestrale”, the lead of which, “Grekale” (pictured), already mentioned, served from 1934 to 1964 and ended its service as quite such a frigate. That is, there were no problems with the hull, but a 152-mm shell could have choked the cruiser to death.
This is a short excerpt from the Internet cries on the topic of our destroyers. In one community I ventured into the comments, but didn’t last long, though. Our reading community will bite anyone to death, but it was even cooler there. They say you are half-witted, or read the sources! So much is written that the hulls were rubbish, they played on the wave, hundreds of rivets were cut off. Stop, I say, if the rivets are cut off, what does that have to do with the body? The body, therefore, was normal, it was the rivets that were rubbish or the hands that installed them were crooked. Well, this is where my participation in the life of this community of marine specialists ended forever.
But, as they say, a sediment remains, so let’s look at the statistics without hysterics?
Northern Fleet

Our smallest fleet in that war suffered not the greatest, but very noticeable losses, including two “sevens”: "Swift" (3 bombs of 250 kg on the deck on July 20, 1941, parked in the port) and "Crushing" (actually broke up and sank in November 1942). Would you say this is it? Not at all.
In general, at the very beginning of my work at VO I wrote a lot of material about “Crushing” (The history of the destroyer "Crushing"), if anyone is interested - please. I’ll also note here that the destroyer died in a force 11 storm in the Arctic Ocean, after escorting a convoy.
In less critical conditions, the same German destroyers turned around and went to base, leaving their heavy cruisers and battleships. I recommend reading about how and why German raiders often acted alone: the waves were more than 5 points - and the destroyers went to base. In principle, it is justified, because a destroyer is of no use in such waves: neither torpedoes nor cannons can be fired, since a ship with a displacement of 1,8-2 thousand tons is not a very stable weapons platform. Although the German destroyers were larger, about 3 thousand tons, but nevertheless.
The Baltic Fleet

"Angry". Died on June 23, 1941. A mine explosion, the crew retained buoyancy, but the ship was finished off by its own crew.
"Proud". The night of November 13-14, 1941, two mines exploded.
"Sharp-witted". November 3, 1941, two mines exploded.
"Guarding". September 21, 1941. Three direct hits from 250 kg bombs, sank in shallow water, and was subsequently raised.
Black Sea Fleet

"Vigilant". On July 2, 1942, while staying in Novorossiysk Bay, the destroyer was hit by a 500-kg aerial bomb. The explosion detonated two torpedoes in the torpedo tube, the destroyer broke into two parts and sank.
"Irreproachable". On June 26, 1942, it was attacked by German bombers, received several direct bomb hits on the aft bridge, the first boiler room and the forecastle, after which the destroyer sank.
"Fast" On July 1, 1941, he was blown up by a bottom mine laid by a German plane. It landed in shallow water and was towed to a dock for repairs, where it was finally finished off by German planes with bombs in September 1941. It was not restored, the bow section was sent for repair to the Besposhchadny EM.
"Merciless". It's long here story, which very clearly shows how cardboard the “sevens” were.
On the night of October 9–10, 1939, the ship was caught in a force 8 storm. Let's remember. The hull in the area of frames 84-90 was deformed, rivets were cut off, cracks formed, frames and beams were bent. The ship was repaired and went on to serve, but apparently someone once read about the sheared rivets.
September 22, 1941. In two passes, the Germans dropped 84 bombs on the destroyer. Why it’s so cool is not at all clear, but three of them hit: one in the stern and two in the bow. One exploded badly, inside the hull, in the area of the bow spire. As a result, the entire bow along frame 35 was practically torn off. The crew cut off the nose, which was supported by one skin, restored buoyancy and was dragged to Sevastopol on the Besposhchadny tugboat.
There, without thinking twice, the destroyer was fitted with a bow section from the Bystroy, which had already been abandoned. The problem was not solved and somehow the destroyer was taken to Poti, where repairs were completed. And “The Merciless One went into battle again!
This intractable ship was finally recaptured only on October 6, 1943, during a stupid raid operation on the Crimea, which cost the fleet the leader “Kharkov” and the destroyers “Besposhchadny” and “Sposobny” solely thanks to the “skillful” command of captain of the second rank Negoda.
During the first raid, the "Merciless" was hit by a 250 kg bomb (or 500 kg, the Stukas did not carry any other ones) from a German Ju-87 dive bomber in the engine room; in the second raid, the Germans hit the helpless ship with four bombs: one again in the engine room compartment and three in the stern. "Merciless" broke apart and sank.
Later that day, the Germans sank both Sposobny and Kharkov. And with this, the combat operations of large ships (from a destroyer and above) of the Black Sea Fleet, by order of Stalin, were completed until the end of the war.
And now we count:
- lost due to a “weak” hull in a storm: 1 ship;
- died from aviation bombs: 6 ships;
- died from mine explosions: 4 ships (“Fast” is counted in two categories);
- died from artillery Enemy: 0.
Out of interest, I looked at the statistics of German destroyers of the 1934 class of all modifications and 1936, that is, those that took part from the first day of the Second World War:
- killed by aerial bombs: 2 ships;
- killed by mines: 1 ship;
- killed by enemy artillery: 6 ships;
- killed by torpedoes: 3 ships;
- blown up by crews: 3 ships.
Here it is also worth clarifying that the two destroyers that were killed by air bombs were ships sunk by the Luftwaffe. There was such a raid operation that the Luftwaffe drowned in the bud. And the bulk of these destroyers died in the Battle of Norway.
Now a few words about mines.

German bottom anchor mines EMC, EMD, EMF are very sophisticated devices with a charge weighing from 150 to 350 kg. Such a charge is more than enough to damage the bottom of the ship and cause a massive influx of water. That's what we observed. The fact that large numbers of ships were killed by mines in the Baltic is due to well-placed minefields. A mine is more difficult to detect, unlike a torpedo, it does not unmask itself as its carrier, and in general it is a very unpleasant type of weapon.
Let's also take British destroyers for the purity of the experiment? The Jervis type, which just fought in the North and Mediterranean seas? 24 destroyers of this class (Jervis) were built, of which 11 ships were lost during the war:
- killed by aerial bombs: 4 ships;
- killed by mines: 3 ships;
- killed by enemy artillery: 1 ship;
- killed by torpedoes: 2 ships;
- blown up by crews: 1 ship.
It is clear that the ships that were sunk by aircraft were the battles for Crete and Malta. That is, practically what happened on the Black Sea - with the complete superiority of the Luftwaffe over the sea.
Do we see the distortion? Do we understand?
What difference does it make how the boiler rooms and engine rooms are arranged, what kind of steel the hull is made of, what the rivets are made of, and so on, if the ships have nothing with which to fight off aircraft? The British have been swaying in this regard for a very long time, even longer than ours. But we had Stalin, who drove ashore degenerate admirals, aimlessly destroying ships in worthless “operations” and unable to interrupt enemy shipping at sea, having a complete advantage in ships and aircraft, but the British did not. And how did it end? That's right, "Prince of Wales" and "Repulse". Then they began to move, but they had nowhere to go - a sea power...
Let's compare now Defense three ships, British, Soviet and German. We will not count the universal main caliber guns, they were intended for other purposes.

Type 1934A (Germany)
37 mm twin installations – 2 pcs;
20-mm single-gun installations G.30 – 6 pcs.
It should be noted here that the 37-mm twins were also gyro-stabilized in two planes. 20-mm installations are not Oerlikons, but Mausers, with a heavier projectile, longer firing range and lower rate of fire.

Type J "Jervis" (UK)
102-mm anti-aircraft gun QF Mk.V – 1 piece;
Quadruple installation “Pom-pom” 40 mm Mk.VII – 1 piece;
20-mm single-gun installations "Oerlikon" - 4 pcs.;
12,7 mm coaxial Vickers machine guns – 2 pcs.

Type 7/7U (USSR)
76-mm anti-aircraft guns 34-K – 2 pcs;
45-mm anti-aircraft semi-automatic guns 21-K – 2 pcs;
12,7 mm DShK machine guns – 2 pcs.
And what are we seeing here? The fact that the Soviet destroyers Type 7/7U did not have air defense as such. There were separate guns with manual loading, firing somewhere upwards.
We're removing the British 102mm anti-aircraft gun, it's just as pointless weapon, as well as Soviet 76 mm guns. What do we see?
The German destroyer has 10 automatic air defense artillery barrels.
The British destroyer has 8 automatic air defense artillery barrels.
The Soviet destroyer has 0 (ZERO) automatic air defense artillery barrels.
A machine gun... yes, a Vickers or a DShK will do as a weapon of the last line of defense. They can easily rip open a mast ship's belly if they get caught.

Here is a very instructive photo. This is not what we are talking about, judging by the 37 mm 70-K machine gun, this is at least the second half of 1942, if not 1943 at all. Yes, having received a bloody slap in the face, our admirals still thought about the fact that it was not numbers that were shooting, but barrels. And they began to install at least something on the destroyers.
These modernizations were rather unsystematic, the ships were equipped according to the principle “I cobbled it together from what I had.” That is, some received the same DShKs, some received large-caliber Vickers or Colt-Brownings, somewhere they installed, as in the picture, a 37-mm 70-K assault rifle, and some received more from generosity one useless 45mm fart gun.

I will express the opinion that there was no more useless air defense weapon than the 45-mm anti-tank gun mounted on a naval carriage in any fleet. Everyone already understood perfectly well that there is only one way to defeat aviation: dense and accurate fire from automatic artillery. Preferably under radar control. This is the key to victory.
The Americans were the first to understand this (more precisely, the Japanese quickly taught them), and began to mercilessly throw out torpedo tubes that were useless from their point of view from cruisers and destroyers, shoving air defense barrels wherever possible.

As a result, by 1943, their destroyer Fletcher had simply gorgeous weapons in the form of 25 (!!!) guns:
- quad 40mm Bofors - 2;
- twin 40-mm "Bofors" - 3;
- twin 20-mm Oerlikon - 4;
- single-barrel 20-mm "Oerlikon" - 3.
One American destroyer carried more guns than a division of Soviet ones. And these were very effective guns, it was thanks to them that the Americans won the battle in the Pacific Ocean against the Japanese.
But everything turned out easier for us. Since the end of 1943, our fleets (as well as the Germans) have stopped using large ships. And all the tasks were solved by the ground army, which is why the Germans so calmly evacuated their divisions from Sevastopol, completely disregarding the fact that the battleship, cruisers and destroyers of the Red Black Sea Fleet would suddenly appear on the horizon and destroy everything.
But by mid-1943, the Red Army Air Force began to gain the upper hand over the Luftwaffe, and with this we can say that that was it, the fleets could relax.
However, it's time to return to the topic of conversation. To the “cardboard” hulls and rotten rivets, to the fact that in those days we did not know how to make ships at all, which is why the fleets did not really fight.

Let’s be honest: we really owe the crazy “successes” in the Baltic and Black Sea to very gifted admirals, who planned simply unparalleled operations such as withdrawing ships through minefields and shelling coastal targets without adjustments and air support in broad daylight. The Northern Fleet was engaged in business and did it in such a way that all North Sea affairs are worthy of ballads and epics.
The case with the destroyer “Crushing” is clearly an exception to the rule. A force 11 storm is dangerous for any ship, not just a 2-ton destroyer. And as examples have shown, Soviet destroyers were very strong ships. The fact that the mines were stronger - excuse me, ships of all powers without exception were blown up and destroyed by mines.
Don't want your ships to be destroyed by mines? Don't take them into minefields. This problem can be solved well by mine reconnaissance and trawling. And if you arm air defense ships, they won’t be so afraid of airplanes either.
Of the 175 Fletcher-class destroyers built, the Americans lost only 25:
- lost in a storm: 1 ship;
- died from enemy artillery fire: 4 ships;
- hit a mine: 1 ship;
- sunk by torpedo: 2 ships;
- sunk by bombs and torpedoes from aircraft: 2 ships;
- sunk by kamikaze suicide bombers on airplanes: 15.

Think about it. Kamikazes are a separate chapter and it was not possible to fight them using conventional methods, hence the losses. But otherwise it’s a pretty decent deal. And in a storm, as you can see, these ships could have perished, however, the story there was a tricky one, typhoon “Cobra” took three destroyers by surprise, which were preparing for refueling and pumped out part of the ballast from the compartments. This is how the Spence, Hill and Monogan perished; the ships were not stable and the typhoon simply scattered them and capsized them.
Otherwise, the Fletchers died like normal ships, albeit not so often. But the Fletchers are considered (deservedly) the best destroyers of that war, and for good reason. Our “sevens” were not the best, but there is nothing to consider them the worst either. A ship, a warship, how is it rated? By the way he carries out the combat missions assigned to him.
So the “Sevens” not only coped with their tasks in the Northern Fleet, but coped with them “excellently.” It was thanks to them and the “noviki” that Allied ships delivered much-needed Lend-Lease cargo to our ports.
Soviet destroyers were quite decent ships for their time, including in terms of strength. And it must be said that they withstood the blows quite well; the same “Merciless” was bombed with so many bombs that would have been enough for another battleship.
However, here it is worth immediately remembering how two Fritz-X bombs, each of which carried 320 kg of ammotol, sent the brand new Italian battleship Rome to the bottom in a state of scrap metal. Displacement, by the way, is 41 tons.

And some believe that a 2-ton destroyer should “withstand” the impact of 000-kg bombs.
In general, we have more and more fans of non-scientific fiction, but here are the figures and facts that show that in that country they could produce not only galoshes, but also quite decent ships.

Yes, the “Sevens” were not without their drawbacks, the main one being the lack of air defense, but they were full-fledged warships. Our ships. And speaking about our ships, especially on the eve of May 9, we will still stick to the obvious facts.
Information