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

183
"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.

“The sevens had weak hulls because they were disgustingly designed, they were not intended for service in our seas! And those who designed such ships were punished, and the destroyers had to be rebuilt.”


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 the bases, leaving their heavy cruisers and battleships. I recommend reading about how and why German raiders often acted alone: ​​seas of more than 5 points - and the destroyers went to the base. In principle, it is justified, because a destroyer is of zero use in such turbulence: neither launch torpedoes nor fire cannons, since it is not very stable armory platform boat with a displacement of 1,8-2 thousand tons. Although the German destroyers were larger, about 3 thousand tons, but still.

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);
- killed by enemy artillery: 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 now compare the air defense of three ships, British, Soviet and German. We will not count universal main-caliber guns; after all, 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.

Let's remove the British 102 mm anti-aircraft gun, it is the same pointless weapon as the 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.
183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    9 May 2024 05: 05
    S.Ya. wrote about the fact that the “sevens” had weak hulls. Pikul, who fought in one of them, in the KSF. The only thing, according to his remarks, was that the “seven” was intended for the “inland” seas - the Baltic and Black. In the Northern Fleet, their sides were dented during strong storms.
    1. +8
      9 May 2024 05: 59
      Come on, have you read Pikul yourself? The sides of any destroyers were crushed in storms. Read the Requiem... Thanks to the skmerks, the convoys went...
      1. -5
        9 May 2024 06: 20
        I read it, however. Oh, you’re one of those people - I love the sea from the shore, but is there a storm in the picture?!
        1. +12
          9 May 2024 07: 01
          Finally a great article from Roman! Thanks to the author! Not without flaws, but overall correct.
          1. +11
            9 May 2024 12: 15
            Quote: ramzay21
            Finally a great article from Roman! Thanks to the author!

            Yes, this time I was pleased! I especially agree with the opinion about modern “experts” and “analysts”.
            As for the topic, I’m no more an advanced sucker in the naval topic, but to criticize the weapons that were used in the war is like dancing on bones. We fought with what we had and there was no choice, and we fought with dignity!
            Happy Victory Day !!! drinks
          2. -20
            9 May 2024 12: 48
            And in my opinion, another search for those to blame. It’s just that this time it’s the admirals who are made to look bad, not the builders, that’s the whole difference.
            There is a typical Soviet tradition of looking for extreme ones in all failures.
            1. +11
              9 May 2024 14: 45
              typical soviet tradition of looking for the extreme in all failures

              It is a normal universal tradition to look for the causes of problems
              1. -3
                9 May 2024 17: 18
                Looking for reasons and assigning blame are different things, and the latter is many times easier and more interesting. Various degenerate authors take advantage of this, and their public consumes it with pleasure.

                PS.
                Quote from the "work" above:
                ...But we had Stalin, who drove the degenerate admirals ashore...
        2. 0
          10 May 2024 03: 23
          Naturally, I’m not a seaman, you wanted to provoke me into rudeness, alas... but I read Pikul, and I remember very well what he wrote about. And not only about our destroyers..
    2. +13
      9 May 2024 06: 59
      With all due respect to V. Pikul, he is not a survivability specialist; The 7s were quite good ships for their time, air defense, yes; weak. So admirals and generals always prepare for the last war. But the USSR simply did not have any sensible shipborne radars in 1941.
    3. +6
      9 May 2024 08: 12
      It’s just that you can’t count the ribs of an icebreaker. And any ship has dented sides. I saw our seven in China. Nothing special.
      1. +2
        9 May 2024 08: 42
        In 42, in the Barents Sea, the stern of the seven was torn off during a storm.
    4. +4
      9 May 2024 09: 04
      Bravo to the author! Especially for your opinion about Zen! So much “garbage” from all sorts of scribblers who think about themselves...
    5. 0
      9 May 2024 10: 35
      By the way, yes, I read about this in his “Boys with Bows,” it seems.
    6. +1
      10 May 2024 00: 28
      Quote: tatarin1972
      In the Northern Fleet, their sides were dented during strong storms.


      Oh:

      https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2024-05/1364773627_uss_cassin_young.webp
      https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2013-04/1364773627_uss_cassin_young.jpg

      In which Arctic did he sunbathe? lol
    7. +1
      11 May 2024 16: 49
      And Pikul’s name was not S. Ya., but Valentin Savvich.
  2. +2
    9 May 2024 05: 22
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=piMyrsL_b54&si=HpSmzEAA5ILz0k8c
    1. +2
      9 May 2024 07: 53
      So what did I write about? They still quote documents, not reflections.
  3. -2
    9 May 2024 05: 34
    Our 45s are not a masterpiece. The night is so derogatory for them. The Germans had an even more useless 37 mm gun. It was necessary to push the projectile with the handles in the same way.
    1. +12
      9 May 2024 06: 07
      For me, our 45s are quite a masterpiece as anti-tank guns of that time. But the effectiveness of their use as anti-aircraft guns raises serious doubts.
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +4
    9 May 2024 07: 18
    The fact that 7 and 7U have weak bodies was not written only by the lazy. The problem came with the project from Italy and was not resolved until the end of operation. The fact that they have weak anti-aircraft weapons was weak in all WWII destroyers. How many of them were drowned by aircraft - you can’t even remember them all. What is a Jervis-class destroyer?))) I, in my naivety, always thought that the British had J-class destroyers. That's why they were called alphabets.
    1. 0
      9 May 2024 08: 07
      The corps were weak for the northern theater. There's excitement there. And even in the Pacific Ocean no problems were noticed. Yes. and the problem was noticed and everything was supported. Just a plate at the junction of the forecastle.
      The real issues are seaworthiness and cruising range.
      1. +2
        9 May 2024 10: 24
        Well, seaworthiness and cruising range are problems of the project itself, since it was made for the Mediterranean. So these are complaints not against the Italians, but against the customers from the Navy.
        Although the Italians also had problems during a Mediterranean storm. Strengthening the structures at the junction of the forecastle did not solve the problem of the longitudinal strength of the hull as a whole. There was still deformation of the hulls.
        1. 0
          9 May 2024 18: 42
          Our ships of that time also did not have a long range. In the North, the British used to consider ours saboteurs. There was a case when our people simply left during the battle. Only we were running out of fuel.
          And the deformities... Who didn't have them? In those days when they saved displacement, this happened every other time. Even the British. "Belfast" and "Edinburgh", for example. A thick armor belt was included in the hull design. the deck began to crack. Yes, these examples are a wagon.
          1. +3
            9 May 2024 19: 08
            Quote: MCmaximus
            There was a case when our people simply left during the battle. Only we were running out of fuel.

            This was when they were trying to do something with Edinburgh.

            Quote: MCmaximus
            Even the British. "Belfast" and "Edinburgh", for example. A thick armor belt was included in the hull design. the deck began to crack.

            According to Wotton, the belt was hung on the skin using armor bolts, that is, the armor was not included in the calculation of the strength of the hull. The deck “started to crack” because the hull was lengthened without much redesign of the structural elements compared to other “towns”.
            That is why the "Besfast" almost broke when it exploded on a mine.
            1. -1
              9 May 2024 19: 35
              It’s no longer clear who to believe. But from the point of view of strength of strength, when the hull is strengthened in the middle of the height, the bottom or deck may well begin to crack. The deck is more logical.
            2. -1
              10 May 2024 10: 08
              Hanging armor onto a lining using bolts or goujons was abandoned long before the "towns". "Edinburgh" and "Belfast" turned out to be so long because they were built in contrast to the Japanese "Mogami", they were designed for 15 - 155 mm, and the American "Helen". But, at some stage of the design, 15 - 16 guns were abandoned in favor of the “Taun” 12 main battery guns, but the length of the hull remained and problems with longitudinal strength remained.
              1. 0
                10 May 2024 11: 50
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Hanging armor onto a lining using bolts or goujons was abandoned long before the "towns".

                Hmm... Raven and Roberts write that the armor was hung on Dl steel plating 3/8 inch thick...

                Quote: TermNachTER
                But, at some stage of the design, they abandoned 15 - 16 guns, in favor of the "Taun" 12 main battery guns

                "Belfast" planned to arm 4x4-152 mm, designed a turret (in the manner of the French - from two half-turrets), but after experimental firing the Admiralty was not satisfied with the accuracy due to the small distance between the barrels in a pair, after which they returned to the three-gun Mark XXII turrets (along the way upgrading them to Mark XXIII)
          2. 0
            10 May 2024 10: 03
            Well, neither the “7” nor the “noviki” were designed for ocean crossings. They were built for specific tactical tasks for inland seas and had the appropriate characteristics. They began to integrate armor into the hull to save weight even before the Edinburgh ships, so there is nothing to blame the shipbuilders for here either.
            1. +2
              10 May 2024 10: 35
              Yes, the issue is not about accusations. Calculating strength is a murky matter. They thought one thing and got something slightly different. This is simply an admission of fact, nothing more. Everyone has made mistakes in one way or another. Look, one episode of “Cleveland” is worth it. Therefore, I think it is wrong to consider our sevens somehow unsuccessful. Quite normal ships for the time and place. Not without its drawbacks. They fought and died. So they did not die by self-flooding in the base.
              The main thing that had an impact: the weakness of anti-aircraft weapons. It was just like that for everyone. How much did the British lose at Crete? So this is a whole fleet.
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 13: 32
                Well, it’s not me who blames, but people who don’t really understand this issue. I completely agree with you that 7 and 7U were not masterpieces, but they also cannot be called completely bad. By and large, everything depended on correct use. Although it is impossible to say that the Soviet admirals were completely stupid. Breakthroughs to Sevastopol, in the summer of 42, were a deadly task. But it’s also impossible not to go to Sevastopol.
    2. +6
      9 May 2024 08: 23
      Is the body weak? The problem was in pairing the set of longitudinal layout with the set of transverse layout at the extremities, but then there was a gale of 11 points... I was in ~ such a boat, the impressions for the rest of my life were commensurate with the boat. Rivets, who hasn’t cut them? ''Nelson'' is not an example, is it? The only problems are illiterate operations, lack of decent hydroacoustics and anti-aircraft weapons. But here we use what the Motherland gave us. And yes, we have a lot of “whistleblowers” ​​and how did we win with comparable losses? It looks like they threw their hats, but among these “historians” those who know iron are nowhere to be seen, and with logic, the problems with “outstanding” Timin and Morozov will not allow them to lie....
      1. +6
        9 May 2024 10: 26
        Any ship is good if it is used correctly tactically. And accordingly bad, with improper leadership.
  7. +4
    9 May 2024 07: 26
    Well... Maybe my memory is failing me, but the last "7u" were transferred to China, where they underwent numerous modernizations and served for a huge number of years, and in my opinion, one of them is still used as a museum.... And yes, here here:
    German bottom anchor mines EMC, EMD, EMF....
    Is there anything wrong? As far as I remember, these are “purely” “bottom” mines....
    1. +3
      9 May 2024 08: 49
      Is there anything wrong? As far as I remember, these are “purely” “bottom” mines....

      EMC, EMD - anchor, galvanic shock. EMF - anchor, magnetic.
  8. +14
    9 May 2024 07: 35
    Who should not be blamed are the engineers. They designed the ship within the framework of their specified performance characteristics, available construction technologies and materials, and budget. Why they were asked the performance characteristics of the Italian Maestrale, and not the USS Fletcher, is a question for the admirals, or maybe someone higher.
    What if they were given the performance characteristics of Fletcher? The project would probably have been done, and quite similar, because the laws of nature are the same, both in the bourgeois USA and in the workers' and peasants' USSR. But construction technologies, as well as equipment for these technologies, as well as technologies for the production of necessary materials, and probably something else, would have to be bought either in the USA, or in Germany, or in Italy, for gold, because England, France, and Japan refused to deal with the USSR even for gold, and no one else had these technologies. And specialists, as well as workers, would have to be sent abroad to master technologies. So we came to the budget, and the gold and foreign currency budget. For the pleasure of having a series of the best destroyers, the country would have to pay with something no less vital. Well, for example, aircraft engines, because the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, which was licensed as the M-100, and Klimov’s subsequent developments based on it, and the M-64, which is based on a license for the Wright R-1820 Cyclone, is what what practically all Soviet fighter and bomber aircraft flew. Bought with gold. And gold in the USSR, alas, was a very limited resource (and where and when were its reserves unlimited, so spend as much as you want?), and the State Bank allocated it with a shaking hand under instructions from the very top.
    The admirals would remain the same. So how they would use these destroyers is another question. Most likely with slightly different results, if only because the fleet is not only destroyers.
    So we did what we could, as best we could. Moreover, the Italians designed the Maestrale for the conditions of the Mediterranean Sea, and not the Arctic Ocean. But in memory of the sailors who fought against them, we should remain silent for a minute, especially on Victory Day.
    1. +5
      9 May 2024 08: 21
      .Why they were asked the performance characteristics of the Italian Maestrale, and not the USS Fletcher, a question for the admirals, or maybe someone higher.
      What if they were given the performance characteristics of Fletcher? The project would probably have been done, and quite similar, because the laws of nature are the same, both in the bourgeois USA and in the workers' and peasants' USSR. But construction technologies, as well as equipment for these technologies, as well as technologies for the production of necessary materials, and probably something else, would have to be bought either in the USA, or in Germany, or in Italy, for gold


      Is this trolling? You are describing the destroyers of the 35th project.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_35

      Another thing is that, as we see from the 35th project, there is no smell of Fletcher there. Fletcher's strength is in his filling (and quantity, of course). Even the British were unable to build anything like this until the end of the war. I will say more, in the late 30s, even the Americans could not build a “real” Fletcher with all its electrical wonders: these are literally the latest achievements of Anglo-Saxon science and technology during the war years.

      And the fact that “someone higher up” did not have time to lay down a couple of hundred 35th destroyers - so God saved. In the early 40s, even without Soviet girings, they say, things were not going well.
    2. +6
      9 May 2024 08: 21
      We just managed to snatch the project from the Italians, so we got it. If the United States had the opportunity, it would be American. And they bought battleship designs from the Italians. And the Americans planned to build battleships according to their design. And the drawings of the Bismarck were stolen from the Germans. And they wanted to buy 380 mm guns with a fire control system. We even bought a cruiser.
      The decision is correct. If you don’t have yours, grab what you can from all over the world. We'll figure it out later. They didn't buy apples or rags. And not even flowers.
      Italian projects had the same origins as ours (Soviet and Russian). Money is always short. We go to the ocean rarely and only out of necessity. We need smaller (cheaper) and more powerful ships. Hence the poor seaworthiness and cruising range and the overload of weapons. Which also affects seaworthiness. Hello to the Germans with their EVs. And it was scary to release their light cruisers into the sea.
      1. +1
        9 May 2024 10: 55
        Quote: MCmaximus
        And the Americans planned to build battleships according to their design.

        Not only battleships were going to be ordered, but also destroyers. Permission was received to build two Mahan-class destroyers, but the Navy Department imposed restrictions on the installation of some of the equipment. I would have to develop something of my own; whether it would succeed or not is unknown.
    3. +7
      9 May 2024 10: 29
      Purchasing samples abroad for licensed production is normal practice. No one disdained the opportunity to buy something new and promising. Even technically developed countries.
  9. +1
    9 May 2024 07: 48
    Air defense at that time was weak not only on sevens. I wonder how things were with air defense in the Soviet Navy on other types of ships? At the beginning of the war, Stalin also asked, among other things, for air defense systems from the Americans.
    1. +9
      9 May 2024 08: 08
      Quote: Eula
      Air defense at that time was weak not only on sevens

      And at the same time, by the beginning of WWII, the Soviet fleet was perhaps the leader in the number of high-speed anti-aircraft guns installed on its ships.
      The same British “Jervis” at the beginning of the war had 2 four-barreled pom-poms, but then they replaced one of them with Oerlikons. And the Oerlikons, in essence, are also an air defense weapon; they categorically lacked range, just like 12,7 mm machine guns.
      That is, even the modernized British Esmas are inferior to the modernized sevens, which had 2 76*mm anti-aircraft guns (by the way, very successful), 3-5 37*mm 70-K instead of 45 mm and machine guns in the same quantity. The German esmas were also inferior to them, whose 37-mm twins were much worse than 70-k.
      In general, it’s not worth fighting one myth and giving birth to a second one :))))) So the number of myths about sevens cannot be reduced :)))
      1. +7
        9 May 2024 09: 01
        Moreover, there was nothing to bet other than forty-five. There were problems with the machine guns. And for everyone in general. And when machine guns appeared, there was already a place for them. Changed it. Let me introduce the people who distributed the machines. A fleet that stands or an army that bleeds. So decide.
        1. 0
          9 May 2024 22: 46
          Quote: MCmaximus
          There were problems with the machine guns. And for everyone in general.


          What are you writing this...? You are trying to kick the beacon of democracy in the most intolerant way.
          And with machine guns it was good for those who didn’t need them...
          Mattress NAVI simply cried from the “Chicago piano”. But some smart Jew managed to buy a Bofors and transport it across the puddle... They tried this instrument and said - “wow, listen to it!” Give us a lot of these and the sooner the more.
          The problem is that the neutrals completely refused not only the guns, but also the license to sell them. Then they were persuaded using the well-known method: “let’s turn off the gas!” The Swedes became sad and gave away the suitcase with the drawings for cookies, with the words - we don’t know anything, you yourself stole it from us.
          Behind a puddle of engineers, they looked through the drawings - but right there we need a whole plant... Well, the cunning Jew said - there will be a plant for you. I didn't lie.
          Amers caught up with first-class niggas and let's rivet the parts. But still, the anti-aircraft gun doesn’t work. Some kind of locomotive! We also had to buy technologists...
          In general, it worked. But there were still not enough Bofors for everyone.
          lol
          1. +1
            10 May 2024 05: 37
            So, well, we didn’t supply gas then. We somehow had to make our own 37 mm in all its varieties. From the same Bofors.
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 07: 23
              Quote: MCmaximus
              So, well, we didn’t supply gas then.


              A lot of things were delivered and where.

              Quote: MCmaximus
              We somehow had to make our own 37 mm in all its varieties. From the same Bofors.


              Yes, we had to cut a lot of things ourselves. At least the same boats of Project 7.
              Naturally, the Arctic class did not come from a Mediterranean yacht...
          2. 0
            10 May 2024 07: 22
            I re-read it again. As I understand it, at the end they forgot to write: “after assembly, modify with a file.”
            In general, Shirokorad wasted money on the brown substance at the plant in Podlipki, which repeatedly failed the plan to develop a 37 mm assault rifle.
            Wow! The civilized nations also had problems.
            1. -1
              10 May 2024 08: 52
              Quote: MCmaximus
              Wow! The civilized nations also had problems.


              The mattresses themselves could not be installed at Bofors... Even with full documentation and equipment.
              The last time they tried to make a land-based Sergeant York self-propelled gun from a pair of these guns. When we already had "Tunguska".

              Yes, and 20 mm Oerlikons come from Switzerland. The fine-shaven and striped ones bought a license for them. You don't hear any special stories about this.
              But with the 20 mm aviation "Hispano-Suiza" it was just an international vaudeville... Four years long. Apparently the mother of these “Great Britons” gave birth on Monday. Until the chief designer was dragged away from the toad-eaters, these English-made guns did not work. And the same ones, but French ones, were in perfect order.

              “Pom-poms” and “Chicago pianos” - only the lazy didn’t kick...

              Everyone, nations and peoples, has things that are extremely successful and extremely unsuccessful. And here, selectively criticizing someone is not a rewarding task at all.
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 11: 57
                Quote: hammerite
                The mattresses themselves could not be installed at Bofors... Even with full documentation and equipment.

                They did it quite well, there was one problem: resources.
                There weren't enough of them for everything. And that is why for a long time all sorts of single-barreled “pom-poms” and twin Oerlikons were molded onto the S type and its derivatives instead of the design “Hasemeiers”.
                1. -1
                  10 May 2024 13: 27
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  They did it quite well, there was one problem: resources.


                  So were they able to do it or was the problem with the amount of green paper?

                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  There weren't enough of them for everything


                  Seriously? Did the Hegemon require metals, not paper? Specialists, not natives?

                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  for a long time they were sculpting all sorts of single-barrel “pom-poms” and twin Oerlikons instead of the design “Hasemeiers”


                  Poor things... They got rich by plundering half the world. But the parents, Great Briton, were specifically omitted. Gayropka was snatched for cheap...
                  Only business...
                  1. +1
                    10 May 2024 13: 29
                    Quote: hammerite
                    Only business...

                    I see the celebration continues... laughing
          3. 0
            10 May 2024 13: 35
            Well, then many people went wrong. Both "Oerlikon" and "Bofors" were on free sale at the end of the 30s. All that was required was to buy a license and set up production. The British, with their "poms", also did not start the war very well.
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 13: 45
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Well, then many people went wrong. Both "Oerlikon" and "Bofors" were on free sale at the end of the 30s.

              The Americans even tested the Bofors, and even wanted to buy it in bulk, but, EMNIP, the Swedes included the standard ammo kit in the installation price, and for some reason the Americans decided that the price was only for the gun, they said “expensive” and said goodbye... Then, probably, they bit their elbows. :)
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 13: 49
                So the British, too, having the opportunity to buy both Oerlikon and Bofors, even before the start of the war, were figuring something out and making a profit. And then the crews of ships, in Norway and in the Mediterranean, paid with their lives for miscalculations.
              2. +2
                10 May 2024 15: 16
                . they even wanted to buy in bulk, but, EMNIP, the Swedes included the standard ammo kit in the installation price, and for some reason the Americans decided that the price was only for the gun, they said “expensive” and said goodbye... Then, probably, they bit their elbows. :)

                You know very well that the Swedes did not and could not have any “wholesale” in the sense of the Americans. Both the installation, the gun, and the ammunition were actually redesigned from scratch to suit Chrysler's capabilities and technical processes. It was possible to get Bofors earlier if you started this work earlier, but buying it ready-made in SUCH quantities is clearly not an option.

                Otherwise the Germans would have done it.
                1. 0
                  10 May 2024 16: 36
                  Quote: Negro
                  You know very well that the Swedes did not and could not have any “wholesale” in the sense of the Americans.

                  This all happened in ’36-’37, EMNIP, and it’s clear not in the production volumes of ’43-’45...
                  And the conversation was initially about army anti-aircraft guns, not naval ones.
                  1. 0
                    10 May 2024 17: 59
                    Since the Americans of 36-37 did not have an army in the European sense of the word, here, as they say, a minus for a minus could give a plus)). But I’m afraid that in general it would be much worse for America: the navy would simply, out of principle, then refuse to take over the system that had been tainted by the army’s paws.
                    1. +1
                      10 May 2024 18: 15
                      Quote: Negro
                      But I’m afraid that in general it would be much worse for America: the navy would simply, out of principle, then refuse to take over the system that had been tainted by the army’s paws.

                      When you can't, but really want to... :)
                      For example, on the Wainwright in 43, instead of the stern TA, three “army” Bofors were installed, and this was in the presence of two “naval” twins. :)
      2. +3
        9 May 2024 10: 33
        J-type destroyers, when entering service, had one four-barreled "pom-pom". Two four-barreled ones weighed a lot and took up a lot of space. Then, there were a lot of air defense variations, depending on availability in warehouses.
        1. +4
          9 May 2024 10: 45
          Quote: TermNachTER
          J-type destroyers, when entering service, had one four-barreled "pom-pom".

          Exactly. Guilty, I was wrong.
          "I'll take it all for the blame
          Link, hard labor, prison,
          But!
          I would like in July
          And preferably in the Crimea "

          Some of them were equipped with two quadruple 12,7 mm mounts.
          1. 0
            9 May 2024 11: 20
            Four-barreled shotguns 12,7 - mm. They were installed, but they were of little use, so they were removed quite quickly. “Pom-pom” is also not a masterpiece, but as already mentioned, the four-barrel installation weighed a lot and took up a lot of space. Two were placed on the cruisers.
        2. 0
          9 May 2024 18: 45
          So pom-pom was simply better than nothing. But the place was reserved. Still, the right anti-aircraft guns were heavy.
          1. 0
            10 May 2024 10: 14
            I agree that “pom-pom” is better than nothing at all. However, the war quickly showed that a long-range anti-aircraft gun was needed, from 76,2 mm. and more. Why did they start removing TAs from British destroyers and installing at least one 76,2 mm one? And on the "tribals" in general, instead of a 120-mm aft twin, they adopted a 102-mm anti-aircraft twin. The funny thing is that the British could have bought the Oerlikon and started licensed production even before WWII, but for a number of reasons they couldn’t and didn’t want to. And the sailors had to take the rap. Swedish Bofors were also available for free sale)))
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 10: 41
              It’s bad that they were afraid to remove our torpedo tubes. There was an opinion that this could be considered by political agencies and special officials as undermining combat readiness. There is no reliable data, but this could easily happen. He suggested one, the particularly zealous ones hit him on the forehead, and everyone decided to keep their heads down. Although it is clear that in that war we needed TAs most of all)))). And instead of one TA, you could stick a pair of 37 mm ones. By the way, after the war, all single installations were replaced by twin ones, as can be seen on the Chinese EM 104. I still don’t know what its name was in our country.
              1. 0
                10 May 2024 11: 53
                Theoretically it is possible, most likely it would be correct. Since the appearance of large Axis ships in the Baltic, in the Gulf of Finland, or on the Black Sea is very unlikely. On the other hand, the combat range is 37 mm. - not enough for serious opposition. A caliber of at least 76,2 mm was required.
      3. +4
        9 May 2024 14: 18
        And at the same time, by the beginning of WWII, the Soviet fleet was perhaps the leader in the number of high-speed anti-aircraft guns installed on its ships.

        ...
        there were 2 76*mm anti-aircraft guns (by the way, very successful)

        And with all this, there was no PUAZO, which reduced the “leadership” in the number of high-speed anti-aircraft guns and so on to almost zero.
        1. +4
          9 May 2024 14: 52
          Quote: Dekabrist
          And with all this, POISO was absent

          Anti-aircraft? Yes, it was EMNIP only on three destroyers - it was late in development. But I would not absolutize the PUAZO period of 1939-1942, and maybe 43 - the products were so-so, frankly speaking. On Bismarck, MPUAZO took place - what’s the point...
          Of course, its absence is a minus, but to say that MZA cannot work without MPUAZO is overkill.
          1. +2
            10 May 2024 11: 59
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            On Bismarck, MPUAZO took place - what’s the point...

            There are no systems with 100% efficiency. :)
            Besides, she was a little understaffed. :)
            1. +1
              10 May 2024 12: 08
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              There are no systems with 100% efficiency. :)

              This is certainly true, but Bismarck’s MPUAZO of the 24 swarfish that participated in the raids (the first - 9, the second - 15, if my sclerosis does not lie to me) was able to damage 4 and did not shoot down a single one. Even if we count two damaged as one shot down, it is only 8,33%. And if we count by how many aircraft did not go on the attack due to anti-aircraft fire, it turns out that the effectiveness is within the same limits at best, since out of 24 aircraft only 2 did not go on the attack, and it is unclear whether this was due to anti-aircraft fire
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 13: 07
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                first - 9

                There is a funny story: there were 9 of them, but one of them had a container with a radar hanging instead of a torpedo, and since in those days the thing was the most secret, in all the reports they wrote that there were 9, but one was lost... The presence of the “swordfish” gunner was declassified only in 47, together with Tovi’s report on the operation.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Even if we count two damaged as one shot down, it is only 8,33%.

                It’s more likely that the question here is not MPUAZO, but rather the organization of fire control. Initially, the Germans wanted to rely on centralized control for both 105 and 37 mm, but then they decided that it would be difficult. 37 and 20 mm were left under local control, that is, leaving everything at the mercy of the calculations. Then the idea arose to separately “centralize” the 37 mm, they developed a post with a Richtlsaule LR-10 column, but they never brought it to fruition.
                As for MPUAZO and Bismarck, both attacks took place in conditions of limited visibility (which made 105 mm ineffective) and high seas (which made MZA ineffective). In general, this is how the cards fell and the result was obvious.
        2. 0
          10 May 2024 13: 39
          So on other destroyers, other fleets, with PUAZO things were not much better. And the presence of a 76,2 mm, just to at least scare a dive bomber pilot is at least something.
  10. +3
    9 May 2024 07: 52
    Roma writes
    "Ruthless" was hit during the first raid 250 kg bombs (or 500 kg, the Stukas did not carry any other ones) from a German Ju-87 dive bomber to engine
    In 1943, the Luftwaffe was armed with the Sturzkampfflugzeug - a dive bomber of the D (Dora) modification, take the performance characteristics of the Ju. 87D (Dora) we read purely about bomb weapons
    The ventral bomb racks and trapeze were completely redesigned, which made it possible to expand the range of bomb weapons. Now the aircraft could carry a 1000 kg fragmentation bomb or a 1400 kg armor-piercing bomb (although no data was found on the suspension of 1800 kg bombs on the Douro in a combat situation: usually SD1000 + 4 × SC50 under the wings). The wing bomb racks were also redesigned, on which four 50 kg bombs or two 250 kg and 100 kg bombs could be hung.
    Under the wing still on Ju. 87B (Bertha) bomb holders ETS 50 were installed for 4 50-kg bombs (in this case, a 250 kg bomb was hung under the fuselage).
  11. +11
    9 May 2024 08: 26
    Basically, destroyers in the fleets of the whole world were built with a linear arrangement, and those that were in echelon could not boast of such survivability: the same Italian “Grecale”, after a 152-mm shell from a British cruiser, was dragged to the base in tow, since the ship was moving completely lost.

    The author seems to be going to fight myths, but then he himself produces these myths.
    At Grecale, the British cruiser "Aurora" fired three salvoes with its main caliber (18 152 mm shells). Distance 5200 - 3000 meters. That is, almost point blank. Moreover, radar was used for guidance. The destroyer was hit by 8 shells. True, some pierced through it without exploding. 23 people were killed and 56 wounded. The shells disabled two of the three boilers. And on one boiler the destroyer continued to move for almost four hours.
    1. +1
      9 May 2024 10: 38
      The war showed that on small ships such as destroyers, echeloned propulsion does not make sense. Even when hit by a projectile of not very large caliber, or an aerial bomb, or a mine explosion, the hull was deformed. Mechanisms moved, pipelines (cables) broke, watertight bulkheads (decks) were deformed, and water entered. Etc. So, in practice, this trick did not yield any special dividends.
  12. +6
    9 May 2024 08: 56
    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.

    How streamlined the author turned it out. It was as if a child had been put in a corner. The chief designer of the project, P. O. Trakhtenberg, and the chief engineer, V. P. Rimsky-Korsakov, were shot in 1937.
  13. +5
    9 May 2024 09: 09
    We will not count universal main caliber guns; after all, they were intended for other purposes.

    And it depends on what universal tools they are.
    If, for example, a B-13 130 mm gun with an elevation angle of 45 degrees, a rate of fire of 7-8 rounds per minute and a barrel survivability of 400 rounds, that’s one thing.
    But if, for example, Mark 12 5″/38 127 mm with a gun elevation angle of 85 degrees, a rate of fire of up to 15-20 rounds per minute and a barrel survivability of 4600 rounds, then this is somewhat different.
    Although formally, both guns are universal and suitable for anti-aircraft fire. They are just suitable in different ways. ...
    1. -1
      10 May 2024 00: 04
      Quote from solar
      But if, for example, Mark 12 5″/38 127 mm with a gun elevation angle of 85 degrees, a rate of fire of up to 15-20 rounds per minute and a barrel survivability of 4600 rounds, then this is somewhat different.


      There is a problem here, it’s a little bit... The body of the gun with the bolt cost $100 USD
      Both Fletcher and 7-y cost about 12 million.
      But the dollar to ruble exchange rate was 1 to 12.

      A little about ballistics: 25 kg from 760 m/s and 32 kg from 820 m/s.
      The versatility of the gun was ensured not so much by the elevation angle as by the MK53 anti-aircraft projectile with a radio caller.
      1. +2
        10 May 2024 05: 54
        . Fletcher and 7 cost about 12 million.

        You can’t immediately tell from 7u: the prices of the Soviet military-industrial complex are unique. Fletcher really cost incredible money: more stingy people could build a heavy cruiser for about the same money. It is difficult to say how much of this is a price for quality, and how much is theft, that is, excuse me, political expediency.
        The versatility of the gun was ensured not so much by the elevation angle as by the MK53 anti-aircraft projectile with a radio caller.

        Yes and no. Yes, because the introduction of the radio fuze in 43 brought the 5/38, a 1934 gun, into a league of its own. No, because before the advent of radio fuses, anti-aircraft guns were much less effective, but not at all useless. The notorious akht-akhts did not have radio fuses, but somehow they managed without them throughout the war. It was really difficult to shoot down something, but breaking up a formation of attacking planes and preventing a calm dive approach happened quite often.
        1. 0
          10 May 2024 10: 49
          As far as I know, “quadruple and twin Bofors and 127-mm guns driven by fire control systems were very expensive. Therefore, it is quite possible that the Fletcher could be comparable in price to some Duquesne.” Only in a maintenance war It remains to be seen what would be more useful. And upgrading a cruiser to normal war standards is not at all cheap. You usually overpay for upgrades. Taking into account the service life, it’s just completely pointless.
          1. +3
            10 May 2024 11: 08
            . quad and twin Bofors and 127-mm guns driven by fire control systems were very expensive.

            Yes. A quadruple Bofors cost as much as two Shermans. On the other hand, the torpedo cost as much as one Sherman, but it is generally consumable. War is not a cheap affair, especially at sea and especially among the Americans.

            I have noted Fletcher's price more for reference. But if the five Fletchers are the heavy aircraft carrier Essex or even the battleship South Dakota, then yes, there is certainly a reason for conversation. With the prosecutor.
        2. -1
          10 May 2024 11: 49
          Quote: Negro
          You can’t immediately tell from 7u: the prices of the Soviet military-industrial complex are unique. Fletcher really cost an incredible amount of money:


          According to the seventh price from the writings of boat designers... 20 lyams, the leader was obtained. In the Soviet military-industrial complex, prices decreased with the development of production and mass production. Which is quite logical.
          The mattress covers were just growing. This is the capitalist “not a step back”....

          Quote: Negro
          No, because before the advent of radio fuses, anti-aircraft guns were much less effective, but not at all useless. The notorious akht-akhts did not have radio fuses, but somehow they managed without them throughout the war.


          Yeah - we're shooting somewhere... Ah-akht had PUAZOs in the batteries and remote fuses.
          Zin koma fünf (10,5 cm) and Zwölf koma acht (12,8 cm) worked from anti-aircraft towers (reinforced concrete hulks larger than medieval castles) on radar guidance without radio fuses at night.
          Gloomy Teutonic genius ...

          I saw similar Soviet PUAZOs on the S-60.
          1. +3
            10 May 2024 12: 08
            . prices decreased with the development of production and mass production. Which is quite logical.
            The mattress covers were just growing.

            The American war economy is a difficult conversation. Just like the Soviet one. Soviet designers were not aware of how much their crafts cost, because even Comrade Voznesensky himself, the future enemy of the people, was not in the know. That’s why I noted that comparing the seven and Fletcher in terms of price is not entirely relevant. Although, of course, Fletcher's perfection had its price, and obviously a considerable one.
            -akhta had PUAZO in batteries and remote fuses.

            All large anti-aircraft guns had remote fuses, even in the 30s. Without them, such a gun would be meaningless. That’s why I noted that the 5/38 was not a wunderwaffe before the radio shells, but remained a very successful weapon of its class. I would even say, the only successful weapon of its class. I don’t remember other products in a similar caliber that performed well.
            1. -2
              10 May 2024 13: 09
              Quote: Negro
              That’s why I noted that comparing the seven and Fletcher in terms of price is not entirely relevant. Although, of course, Fletcher's perfection had its price, and obviously a considerable one.


              Does the cheapness of the seven not count?
              And the obvious technological pro-love of the Republic of Ingushetia in everything and everyone... Yes, “pheasants” were just created - factory schools. The original contingent could only dig and not dig.
              It’s just like now these college graduates who don’t even know how to dig... It’s not even their dads who bring them, but their grandfathers - you’ll teach them. Yes, but... They will run to complain to you that they gave you a shovel and forced you to dig. And you will begin to excuse your beloved granddaughters... No, guys, everything is according to the classics, no one is going to bend or break anyone, but your grandchildren are dangerous to themselves. And I won’t lie in the trainees’ records. I will support any interest in any technology. With a sufficient level of hard work - my grandchildren dig, dig, then everything else.
              Now it is extremely difficult to imagine that the majority of the population did not know how to write and count.

              Quote: Negro
              I would even say, the only successful weapon of its class. I don’t remember other products in a similar caliber that performed well.


              The instrument arrived at the right time. Not every ax, not in every forest, not in every hand will fall...
              For some, a ketmen, for others, a shovel... Hundreds and thousands of options for the simplest tools.
              Give a hundred options for weapons and teach each of them to master skillfully - then there will be something, somewhere, and for some reason, to someone. And not BSL 110 - the same for everyone. The thing is good, but far from ideal.
              love
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 14: 48
                "pheasants" were just being created - factory schools. The original contingent could only dig and not dig.
                Just like these college graduates now

                I don't understand why this is happening.

                And I don't want to understand.
                1. -1
                  10 May 2024 15: 00
                  Quote: Negro
                  I don't understand why this is happening.

                  And I don't want to understand.


                  This is bad BRO. You don't want to see reality.
                  Deindustrialization of the country is bad!
                  What do you want to understand - stolen kilowatts from the national economy in Bitcoin?
                  For the benefit of what and who are your actions aimed at?
            2. +1
              10 May 2024 13: 13
              Quote: Negro
              I don’t remember other products that performed well in a similar caliber

              But the owners themselves were still dissatisfied with it and replaced it with a 5"/54 Mark 16
              1. 0
                10 May 2024 14: 57
                The budget will not master itself.

                However, the 5/54 gun did not work out either, and was redesigned in the post-war period. I have some doubts about the universal caliber for the LK and especially the KR, but for the WWII destroyer 5/38 is an ideal option. Before the development and debugging of the mechanized supply of a unitary shot, it was not possible to create something significantly better.

                As for the owners, the 5/38 was a howitzer gun for the Soviets, its ballistics were close to the A-19. The admirals wanted a long barrel, like in their younger years, although there was no longer any need for it.
            3. -1
              10 May 2024 15: 23
              Quote: Negro
              The American war economy is a difficult conversation. Just like the Soviet one.


              Simple as twice two. Elementary.

              Quote: Negro
              Soviet designers were not aware of how much their crafts cost, because even Comrade Voznesensky himself, the future enemy of the people, was not in the know. That’s why I noted that comparing the seven and Fletcher in terms of price is not entirely relevant. Although, of course, Fletcher's perfection had its price, and obviously a considerable one.


              the imperfection (?) of the seed quite cost the price of insufficient capital and organizational investments in the project.
              But there were no great resources... There weren’t any in ’34.
              There were no mechanics or turners. Almost like now.
              But there were plenty of cultivators and grooms, woodcutters and shepherds...
              Are you going to eat pixels?
      2. 0
        10 May 2024 07: 20
        The versatility of the gun was ensured not so much by the elevation angle

        yeah. For anti-aircraft use, is elevation angle a secondary characteristic?
        But the dollar to ruble exchange rate was 1 to 12.

        The ruble was not a freely convertible currency, and its “rate” does not mean anything.
        1. -2
          10 May 2024 12: 35
          Quote from solar
          For anti-aircraft use, is elevation angle a secondary characteristic?


          Aha! Tell this to the Main Command of the Battleships of the Land of the Rising Sun.
          356mm Shikodanchik into the propeller from Kirishima's gun with an elevation angle of less than 30*. lol
          A little historical background:
          In total, during the war years, the "Crushing" fired 1639 130-mm shells (including 84 at aircraft), 855 - 76-mm and 2053 - 37-mm shells, while shooting down 6 enemy aircraft (2 of them together with other ships ).



          Quote from solar
          The ruble was not a freely convertible currency, and its “rate” does not mean anything.


          Oooh... Economists have arrived! laughing
          But the ruble was different. That is: a double-circuit internal economy and an external gold ruble, right up to the Bretton Woods shame.

          My wife received a second degree in economics from “Chinese” in the 90s of the last century.
          I, he says, haven’t learned the answers to all the tickets. There are no answers to these questions in textbooks. Tell me how to answer.
          Zaya, you are at the institute, not me... Take your books and a bottle, then ask questions about how your daughter will fall asleep.
          It comes - it shines! - What did you tell me?
          - Do I remember? I sucked the bubble into one.
          - The teachers wanted to kick me out of the exam! But the “Chinese” (the owner of the institute) sat and listened quietly. When the teachers began to shut me up and nibble me, he calmly said: if I see such behavior towards students again, I will fire him. Continue.
          I listened to the detailed answer. I asked a few questions.
          - Yes, you are somewhat vague in theory, but you answer not from paper, but in your own words, you fully show your personal understanding of the essence of the issue. I would like to personally meet the prominent economist of the Soviet School who advised you.
          My wife was clearly embarrassed... And the “teapot” did not insist. I just took out a bottle of expensive whiskey - pass it on to your consultant from me. I made a small announcement: Dear teachers - at our university any sensible and reasoned alternative opinion is encouraged, and not just following the official curriculum. If anyone touches this student woman in vain... Well, you understand!

          Oh, where is my bubble of whiskey? laughing
          1. 0
            10 May 2024 19: 25
            In the 30s, the elevation angle of 14-inch naval artillery was increased from 25 to 43° (a reach of more than 35 km with an armor-piercing projectile of 673,5 kg).

            The elevation angle is related to the firing range.
            Sorry, the rest of your text is unreadable.
            hi
            1. 0
              11 May 2024 07: 21
              Quote from solar
              Sorry, the rest of your text is unreadable.


              Try again:
              Quote: hammerite
              double-circuit internal economy and external gold ruble, right up to the Bretton Woods shame.


              All currencies had a gold equivalent. And the ruble too.
              Bank transfers between enterprises and the state could not be converted into salary cash. You can’t just convert a ruble into foreign currency. Using foreign currency within the country is a crime!
              This is a very correct system that did not allow the country to be robbed.
              1. -2
                11 May 2024 10: 48
                In the USSR, a lot of things were theoretically implemented, but not implemented practically.
                Somehow a dollar for 80 kopecks, which in reality could not be bought, even if you were traveling abroad (with the exception of small pocket money)
                With the “gold equivalent” of the ruble it is even simpler - he died without being born.
                In order to improve monetary circulation, in 1923 the USSR issued a gold coin with a denomination of “one chervonets”, containing 7,74235 grams of gold, that is, exactly as much as 10 rubles of the 1897 model contained. However, the circulation of the Soviet chervonets was small, and the exchange of paper money for it was very limited. In parallel with the Soviet chervonets, tsarist gold tens were minted and used for foreign trade transactions. However, the gold standard did not last long in the Soviet Union. With the beginning of industrialization, the ruble exchange rate began to fall, and since 1937, a new chervonets was introduced into circulation, which was not convertible into gold, even theoretically.
                1. 0
                  12 May 2024 10: 06
                  Quote from solar
                  With the “gold equivalent” of the ruble it is even simpler - he died without being born.


                  Did you come up with it yourself or did someone suggest it?
                  September 1931 - Great Britain abolishes the gold standard and introduces a freely floating exchange rate for the pound sterling. In order to manage the exchange rate, a special “Exchange Stabilization Account” was created.
                  1933 - abolition of the gold standard in the United States and the introduction of a freely floating dollar exchange rate, the forced exchange of gold for paper money.
                  1. -1
                    12 May 2024 20: 20
                    Quote from solar
                    With the “gold equivalent” of the ruble it is even simpler - he died without being born.


                    Did you come up with it yourself or did someone suggest it?
                    September 1931 - Britain abolishes the gold standard

                    Great Britain has nothing to do with the ruble.
                    hi
                    1. 0
                      14 May 2024 23: 38
                      Quote from solar
                      Great Britain has nothing to do with the ruble.


                      What are you doing... Alternative economists were pouring into the chat.
                      But the pound sterling was the main world currency strictly tied to gold.
                      Then this place was taken by the dollar, also rigidly tied to gold.
                      The exchange rate of all world currencies was strictly tied to the main world currency.
                      But... How can there be a “golden chervonets” (backed by gold) tied to the dollar if the dollar is tied to gold and is not backed by gold?
                      So there is no need to rubbish about other democratic currencies. They were not backed by gold, even theoretically. Or "this is different"?
      3. +1
        10 May 2024 12: 02
        Quote: hammerite
        The versatility of the gun was ensured not so much by the elevation angle as by the MK53 anti-aircraft projectile with a radio caller.

        In fact, long-range anti-aircraft guns were intended for setting up screens, and not for sniper shooting, so a radio fuse is good, but not for the Uberwaffe.
        1. -1
          10 May 2024 13: 16
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Uberwaffe


          Wunder waffles - beyond reality.
          All European prodigies are reduced to a common denominator and multiplied by zero.
          Ultra-light UAVs remain a problem for everyone until... A matter of time.
          1. +1
            10 May 2024 13: 24
            Quote: hammerite
            Wunder waffles - beyond reality.

            Naturally... :)

            Quote: hammerite
            All European prodigies are reduced to a common denominator and multiplied by zero.

            Who knows what else they have hidden in their pockets.
            1. -1
              10 May 2024 14: 47
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              Who knows what else they have hidden in their pockets.


              Drill review? winked
        2. +1
          10 May 2024 13: 46
          If there is a detection and guidance radar and a radar fuse, this is no longer a fire curtain to scare enemy pilots. This is really fire to kill. 127 - mm. When the shell exploded, it produced a sufficient number of fairly large fragments.
          1. 0
            10 May 2024 13: 48
            Quote: TermNachTER
            This is really fire to kill.

            With a sufficiently large number of rapid-fire guns - undoubtedly...
            1. +1
              10 May 2024 13: 50
              And so it was for them. All LCs, starting with North Carolina, have 10 paired installations.
              1. 0
                10 May 2024 15: 00
                All LCs, starting with North Carolina, have 10 paired installations.

                The head Dakota has 8, the Alaskans have 6.

                However, these are trifles.
                1. 0
                  10 May 2024 16: 10
                  The Dakota had a stripped-down version due to design limitations. And Alaska, in general, is a battle cruiser of unknown purpose.
        3. 0
          10 May 2024 19: 27
          For the Americans, the detonation range was set when the projectile was fed onto the conveyor.
          1. 0
            10 May 2024 19: 47
            Quote from solar
            For the Americans, the detonation range was set when the projectile was fed onto the conveyor.

            Guess three times what the crew number with the “driver” - Fuse Setter - was doing in the fighting compartment of the tower?
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 20: 11
              What did the crew number with the “driver” - Fuse Setter - do in the fighting compartment of the turret?

              derived from the name of the fuse setting mechanism - Fuze Setter Mechanism.
              It depended on the type of gun mount, they were different.
              Base ring mounts
              The ready service ammunition is kept in the upper handling room just below the mount. The projectile travels up to the gun room (also called the gun house) through an electric-hydraulic hoist.[5] It arrives next to the projectile-man nose down and waist high. If the projectile has a time fuze, the fuze is automatically set as it goes up the hoist, and the hoist maintains the ordered fuze setting from the fire control system as long as the projectile stays in the hoist


              Pedestal mounts
              The ready service ammunition is kept in lockers or compartments arrayed around the mount. The projectiles and powder cases are hand carried from ready service to the left side of the moving mount. The projectile is placed nose down in one of three Fuze Setter Mechanisms (commonly called fuze pots) on the mount. If the man is delivering a projectile with a mechanical time fuze, he then spins a hand crank just in front of that fuze setter mechanism. This would dial in the ordered fuze time into that projectile.
              1. 0
                10 May 2024 20: 44
                Quote from solar
                derived from the name of the fuse setting mechanism - Fuze Setter Mechanism.

                Exactly...

                Quote from solar
                it depended on the type of gun mount, they were different.

                Since we are talking about "fletchers", it is natural - Enclosed base ring mounts

                Quote from solar
                Base ring mounts

                Hmmm... Americans are pretty creative: putting the fuse installer into the feed tray requires a lot of imagination. :)
                1. -1
                  10 May 2024 21: 15
                  You do not express your thoughts very clearly; it is difficult to understand you.
                  The Fletchers had Mk-30 mounts - single-gun closed on a ring run - Enclosed single (and not Enclosed base ring mounts, as you indicated. This is a mount with an open rear shield cover - a special variety of Mk30 Mod1). The installation was serviced by a lift.
                  hi
                  1. +1
                    10 May 2024 21: 56
                    Quote from solar
                    You do not express your thoughts very clearly; it is difficult to understand you.

                    If you believe the drawings, the Fletchers had Single Mount, Base Ring, Enclosed
                    According to Nav Vips, but the same thing, only in a different order Single Enclosed Base Ring Mount

                    Quote from solar
                    The installation was serviced by a lift.

                    Sorry, but all I can do is quote you... hi
                    Quote from solar
                    You do not express your thoughts very clearly; it is difficult to understand you.
                    1. 0
                      10 May 2024 23: 34
                      The Fletchers had closed single-gun mounts with a ring shoulder strap.
                      https://picryl.com/media/1st-view-from-bridge-of-fletcher-class-destroyer-underway-e1c47b
                      Yes, there are indeed some confusion with their name; I wrote it incorrectly above.
                      They were called Enclosed singles, they could be Mk30 Mod0,2,4,5 on different destroyers.
                      Enclosed base ring, as far as I understand, is specifically the base version of the Mk30 Mod0.
                      The version of the Mk30 without the rear shield was called Mk30 Mod1, or Open single base ring mount.
                      Sorry, but all I can do is quote you...


                      There were two main types of installations - either with a ring turret ring, or with a pin mount, both had variations.
                      The first were equipped with lifts that fed shells from a special room below - and these installations were equipped with automatic installation of fuses before feeding them to the lift.
                      The pin installations did not have such a lift and the shells were there near the gun in special racks, the fuse was installed only before loading using a device like the one below in the picture.
                      The device could be switched to manual or automatic mode. The automatic mode worked with the lift according to commands from the fire control system (main mode) or manually, pin modes - only in manual mode.
                      In any case, there was a special member of the crew who dealt with this
                      Fuze setter

                      Single Mount Fuze-setting Indicator Regulator
                      He operates the equipment which sets the fuze time on projectiles with mechanical time fuzes. On a single enclosed mount, he sits below and just outboard of the Pointer's seat. Under the Pointer's seat, and in front the Fuse Setter, is the Fuse Indicator Regulator. It is a box with a window, a hand crank, and a selector lever. On a twin mount, he and his Fuze Indicator Regulator sit next to the Sight Setter between the guns. When the mount is put in Automatic control, he flips the selector lever to Auto, and this electrically powered Fuze Indicator Regulator automatically follows the fuze setting orders sent from the Fire Control System by synchro. In Local Control, he follows the Mount Captain's fuze orders by spinning the hand crank until the dials in the window read the correct fuze time.

                      hi
  14. +3
    9 May 2024 09: 25
    Let's now compare the air defense of three ships, British, Soviet and German. We will not count universal main-caliber guns; after all, they were intended for other purposes.
    No, it was the universal guns that were intended for air defense missions. This is the main protection of the ship from aircraft.
    Let's remove the British 102 mm anti-aircraft gun, it is the same pointless weapon as the Soviet 76 mm guns. What do we see?
    Brilliant! We throw away the main air defense forces and leave the rattles, which can try to shoot after the plane that dropped the bombs. These are 20mm machine guns and can't be counted.
    After the war, the Americans built the ideal cruiser for World War II - Des Moines. Do you know its main advantage? No, this is not the main caliber with a six-inch rate of fire (that's cool, but you can get by). There they threw away all the anti-aircraft items and installed 76-mm machine guns. This is the minimum normal anti-aircraft caliber. He could destroy a kamikaze with one shell, but most importantly, he could disrupt the dive bomber’s transition to attack; the little thing did not have enough height to kill. And the dive bomber was the main enemy of the ship (except for battleships: their main enemy is the torpedo bomber).
    1. Alf
      +1
      9 May 2024 23: 20
      Quote: bk0010
      These are 20mm machine guns and can't be counted.

      American sailors said that when twenty-millimeter guns start shooting, it’s time to jump overboard.
    2. 0
      10 May 2024 14: 19
      What’s bad about the British 102 mm, in a twin version, with a POISO?
      1. 0
        10 May 2024 16: 47
        Quote: TermNachTER
        What’s bad about the British 102 mm, in a twin version, with a POISO?

        Who knows... :)
        The British installed it wherever they could and didn’t complain.
        1. 0
          10 May 2024 18: 08
          So I say, the cannon was put into service long before WWII, successfully fought the entire war, and suddenly turned out to be bad. Some authors write something just for the sake of writing)))
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. 0
    9 May 2024 10: 43
    Interesting, thanks. """"
  17. +5
    9 May 2024 10: 49
    This is not an article - this is heavy nonsense.
    1. The Italians’ hulls were rather weak, so they tried to lighten the hull as much as possible. Not only destroyers but also cruisers were distinguished by this drawback. The Japanese had a similar situation with the Mogami-type SRT.
    2. The strength situation with Project 7 was complicated by the overload of the ends from the placement of 4 relatively heavy 130-mm caliber gun mounts. In the Italian project there were two located closer to the center of the ship.
    3. The designers and admirals for the EM 7 project should have been shot. The designers and admirals wanted to create the most powerful ship with minimal displacement - the result is known.
    The result was a ship with overly powerful artillery to the detriment of other combat qualities - seaworthiness, survivability, air defense, torpedo armament.
    4. In general, equipping a ship of the size of the EM pr.7 with guns with separate loading is stupid. At the slightest disturbance, the rate of fire drops many times.
    5. The best solution for EM pr.7 was re-equipment with B-34 guns and 37-mm machine guns + DShK in twin mounts.
    1. +2
      9 May 2024 12: 30
      The designers and admirals for the EM 7 project should have been shot.

      The designer was shot.
      In general, equipping a ship of such size as EM pr.7 with guns with separate loading is stupid.

      But the Americans equipped the destroyers. We didn't have any big problems with this.
      1. Alf
        0
        9 May 2024 23: 22
        Quote from solar
        But the Americans equipped the destroyers.

        They didn’t have such “experts”, no one suggested...
    2. +4
      9 May 2024 13: 07
      The best solution for EM pr.7 was to re-equip it with B-34 guns and 37-mm machine guns + DShK in twin mounts.

      Which of these were in sufficient quantities on June 22, 1941?
      Or at the time of the start of production of 7/7U series destroyers?
    3. +2
      9 May 2024 18: 49
      Yes, there was nothing wrong with separate loading. Maybe even higher rate of fire in fact. Calculation is not so difficult. On a rocking deck. In general, the axis of the barrel was quite high. There was a special table for the projectile. Wrenching a unitary projectile to a level above the shoulder is still fun.
      1. +5
        9 May 2024 20: 22
        I'm not a theorist, I'm a practitioner. He was a gunner on the SM-2-1 destroyer Project 56, post-war, of course. He sat in the stabilization position and was a loader and horizontal gunner. What kind of unitary loading can there be on a 130 mm gun, if only automatic. We had separate-case loading, so the projectile weighed 32 kg and the charge - 30 kg. On the B-13, loading was both case and separate case, depending on the modification, but still the weight was somewhere around fifty dollars. The projectile charges, by the way, were thrown not onto the table, but onto a tray. Okay, the B-13 had an elevation angle of 45 degrees, but ours had an elevation angle of 85 degrees, like the Americans. This is why I’m tired of throwing unitary shells of that weight onto a tray. But at an elevation angle of 85 degrees, this is practically impossible and the rate of fire will drop noticeably. I had a case when I dropped a charge on the deck while trying to lower it onto the tray at the maximum elevation angle when shooting at an aerial target. It's not a matter of rough seas, but the work of the gunners. They, the pests, jerk the turret both vertically and horizontally, trying to align the arrows on the precision aiming scale. The shell is thrown onto the tray by the gun commander, this is higher on the tray - normal, the loader tries to lower the charge from the platform down, holding a 30-kg charge, just wiped of grease and not completely, in places in grease. As soon as you try to lower it onto the tray, the tower twitches and nothing happens. Well, as for the rate of fire from the radar and DAC, it also depends to a large extent on the gunners, since they combine the arrows on their dials for coarse and fine aiming, and this is also not easy. The shot occurs when both gunners align their arrows. Stabilization was practically no longer used in our country; the PUS in the DAC already took this into account.
        1. +2
          10 May 2024 05: 51
          I just don't know what this thing is called. But I saw on installations a table, a tray, I don’t know how, turning to the side. Photo on the destroyer. This red handle led everything to the side, to the left.
          Maybe it was not on all installations. Since I have seen installations without this thing. Although these are all museum exhibits, they could have been removed.
        2. -1
          10 May 2024 07: 36
          Judging by the photo it’s hard, but bearable
          1. +2
            10 May 2024 08: 06
            Of course we can tolerate it. Booth installation, walk around as you wish, the elevation angle is small. On the SM-2-1, in the place where the loader stands in this photo, there is no room for the loader (there are two loaders for 1 barrel), the gun mount is open from below, there is a forecastle deck, about a meter and a half away. The crew crew is located on two platforms on the sides of the guns. The swinging part at large pointing angles goes far down, that’s why the a/c is made open from below, that’s where you need to reach from the platform with the charge. And this is about the rammer tray.
            “The rammer (pneumatic, with rack and pinion accelerator) and the charger are capable of providing single-pass loading of separate-case loaded ammunition, the ramming path length is 1700 mm. The charger tray allows simultaneous loading of a projectile and a cartridge case. Powder gases are ejected automatically"
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 08: 20
              This Mk21 installation in the photo is with manual loading. The maximum elevation angle is also 85 degrees.
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 08: 23
                Yes, I see, I already Googled it. I meant that in the photo the elevation angle is small for the vehicle.
  18. +2
    9 May 2024 10: 52
    Quote: bk0010
    There they threw away all the anti-aircraft items and installed 76-mm machine guns. This is the minimum normal anti-aircraft caliber.

    No need to bear the blizzard, the Americans installed automated, stabilized twin 76-mm mounts with radar control. The difference with 76-mm single mounts with manual loading and the absence of shells with a radio fuse is obvious, isn’t it?
    1. -1
      9 May 2024 12: 51
      Quote: Dozorny severa
      No need to bear the blizzard, the Americans installed automated, stabilized twin 76-mm mounts with radar control. The difference with 76-mm single mounts with manual loading and the absence of shells with a radio fuse is obvious, isn’t it?
      And what is the blizzard?
  19. -1
    9 May 2024 11: 33
    Since when did Teutonic naval 37 mm shooters suddenly become automatic?
    Well, German destroyers are still guano.
    1. 0
      9 May 2024 18: 50
      From any storm they molt to the port. The same British did not leave anywhere.
      1. 0
        9 May 2024 19: 12
        Quote: MCmaximus
        From any storm they molt to the port. The same British did not leave anywhere.

        Can you provide some examples?
        I have long been convinced that in many ways the history of the Kriegsmarine is also based on established myths.
        1. 0
          9 May 2024 19: 33
          Offhand. Otherwise there is no memory. Classic - the last voyage of the Scharnhorst. "Tirpitz" against convoy PQ-12. The destroyers were unable to refuel due to their seaworthiness and went home. So, I’m not much of an enthusiast for the topic of German EVs. And the British finished off the Scharnhorst with destroyers.
          1. +1
            9 May 2024 20: 04
            Quote: MCmaximus
            Classic - the last voyage of the Scharnhorst.

            Never a classic: the joke of humor is that the Scharnhorst, for some reason, itself turned to almost the opposite course, without notifying the destroyers.
            Destroyers up to 1500 tried to solve two problems: find the convoy and find the Scharnhorst, but due to confusion with the coordinates, neither one nor the other worked out...
            As for PQ-12, I’ll look at the concrete documentation... Because often the primary documentation differs from the post-war presentations.
            1. 0
              10 May 2024 05: 58
              The Germans have interesting rules! The flagship: wherever I want, I go, and the escort destroyers: wherever I want, I go. My interests generally don't go as far as database logs. In general, after serving in the SA under the relevant structures, I would not trust the database logs. Ours for sure. Trust but check. Everything is very approximate. One hope is for the “German order”.
              1. +2
                10 May 2024 12: 25
                Quote: MCmaximus
                The Germans have interesting rules! The flagship: wherever I want, I go, and the escort destroyers: wherever I want, I go.

                There is no order there, there are mysteries: the survivors from the Sharnhost were not in the right ranks to explain what happened on the bridge of the battleship.
                The destroyers, in accordance with the plan, were moving in a screen 10 miles ahead of the Scharnhorst, and then bam!: a radio message arrived that the flagship was fighting about 35 miles northeast of their location. The report of Johanneson (the flotilla commander) clearly shows a slight oh... bewilderment at what is happening. In general, the destroyers reached the point, naturally found nothing, stayed at sea until the evening and were recalled...

                Quote: MCmaximus
                In general, after serving in the SA under the relevant structures, I would not trust the database logs.

                I don’t argue, everyone sins like this...

                Quote: MCmaximus
                Trust but check. Everything is very approximate. One hope is for the “German order”.

                And often there are no other documents. It’s good when there are documents from the opposing side, but even in this case anything can happen: often only the location of the action coincides. :)
            2. 0
              10 May 2024 06: 14
              But the fact that the Germans’ bow ends were narrow, not at all wider than our sevens, the sides do not look high at all in any part, and the congestion of artillery, especially in terms of their 150-mm variants, is even greater, then lousy seaworthiness simply must be . Perhaps when they tried to fix this in the last episodes, something changed. It would be interesting to read what our people thought when they served on captured ones. But I didn't see anything. Then the Baltic was mined for the most part. Maybe ours didn’t go anywhere. So, for a walk along the marquise puddle and back.
              1. +1
                10 May 2024 12: 28
                Quote: MCmaximus
                Perhaps when they tried to fix this in the last episodes, something changed.

                On the Narviks (type 1936A), the bow end was redesigned to increase buoyancy.

                Quote: MCmaximus
                It would be interesting to read what our people thought when they served on captured ones.

                It would be more interesting to read the French (they used them for a long time across the seas and oceans) and the American report on the Z-39.
              2. 0
                11 May 2024 02: 46
                Quote: MCmaximus
                But the fact that the nasal extremities of the Germans were narrow


                There is a completely logical explanation for this. They have almost vertical sides of the bow in order to cut the Baltic wave, and not rise to the Black Sea.
                The Russians got burned on this even under the Tsar Father and redesigned the nasal ends to a larger V.
                The Baltic is shallow and the waves there are different than in the Black Sea...
                Interestingly, British destroyers were considered much less seaworthy compared to American ones.
                1. 0
                  11 May 2024 04: 20
                  Germany is still not the Baltic. And the North Sea and beyond. At sea they tried to plan a war against the French. And with sharp noses and low-sided clothes, they had everything. Style, as they would say now. Someone there had similar thoughts.
                  1. 0
                    11 May 2024 06: 33
                    Quote: MCmaximus
                    Germany is still not the Baltic.


                    Kiel, Lubeck, Rostock, Königsberg...
                    Nickel, manganese, iron...
                2. +1
                  11 May 2024 11: 57
                  Quote: hammerite
                  There is a completely logical explanation for this. They have almost vertical sides of the bow in order to cut the Baltic wave

                  From type to type, the camber of the frames in the nose increased...
  20. +5
    9 May 2024 13: 03
    Dear Roman!
    By fighting only myths, you are “inflating the myth of “air defense of Soviet warships”!
    You are comparing Soviet destroyers in the condition at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, and your other destroyers were not originally equipped with air defense forces!
  21. 0
    9 May 2024 14: 24
    Good article. “Brave” is also one of the seven, but they say that he effectively fought off several air raids until he was blown up by a mine. Smart, the same seven, fought off air raids, including alone until the end of the war, the air defense of course was weaker than that of the allies, but I agree with the author, good destroyers, real workhorses of the Second World War
  22. +3
    9 May 2024 16: 19
    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?


    "The exhausted crews and battered ships of the Mediterranean Fleet, already reaching the limit of endurance, without hesitation they carried out Cunningham's orders to return back to save their army comrades. The fleet acted in the spirit of the famous phrase of its commander: “It takes 3 years to build a ship, but it takes 300 years to create a new tradition.”. The ships went back to meet new attacks and new losses. "

    In general, everyone has their own traditions.
  23. +5
    9 May 2024 17: 02
    Quote from solar
    But the Americans equipped the destroyers. We didn't have any big problems with this.

    Firstly, American destroyers are almost twice as large, secondly, their projectile is lighter, and thirdly, their turrets are closed with internal supply through elevators.
    In general, this is the case when one organ is compared to a finger...
    1. 0
      9 May 2024 19: 27
      We load both guns separately. But their design is very different. So the problem is not with the type of loading, but with the design of the gun mounts.
      1. 0
        11 May 2024 03: 19
        Quote from solar
        We load both guns separately. But their design is very different.


        Pipe with a hole inside... laughing
        B-13 is a black liner, Mk12 is a monoblock with a chrome-plated channel.
        A barrel cut from 60 to 55 calibers, maintaining ballistics and 38 clb.
        Cartuzed (this is always a problem with sealing the shutter) and separately sleeved...

        Quote from solar
        So the problem is not with the type of loading, but with the design of the gun mounts.


        Yeah... B-13 - 12 tons including the base. Mk30 - 19 tons only turret.
        Despite the fact that the Soviet gun has one and a half times the muzzle energy. The projectile is 30% heavier, the initial speed is 8% higher.

        The systems are very different.
  24. +7
    9 May 2024 17: 25
    For the author, everything is as usual: horses, people, swords, axes, axes were mixed together... (c)
    I recommend reading about how and why German raiders often acted alone: ​​seas of more than 5 points - and the destroyers went to the base.

    One could ask what the author recommends reading, but the question will still go into the void...
    By the way, I wonder, will the author be able to name the second raider that was “abandoned” by the destroyers?
    And the first one (which is the Scharnhorst) abandoned its destroyers for some unknown reason.

    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.

    The author is being a little disingenuous: on 7U there were 3 “magpies” and four DShKs. It's a small thing, but it's nice...

    Let's remove the British 102 mm anti-aircraft gun, it is the same pointless weapon as the Soviet 76 mm guns. What do we see?

    I wonder, on the basis of what data did the author conclude that anti-aircraft guns are useless?
    It seems that his conclusions are fundamentally different from the conclusions of the same British, who on the “tribals” replaced the X installation with a 102-mm twin...

    The German destroyer has 10 automatic air defense artillery barrels.

    The author constantly forgets that the German 37-mm twin-arm is a SEMI-automatic... :)

    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.

    The author is probably not aware that 37-mm 70-K assault rifles began to be installed on the “Seven” in July 41, when they were put in for repair.

    As a result, by 1943, their destroyer Fletcher had simply gorgeous weapons in the form of 25 (!!!) guns

    The author is openly lying...
    The first “fletchers” entered service in the fall of 42 and carried 1x2-40 mm Bofors (and some got “Chicago” pianos) and four to six Oerlikons. On some "fletchers" another 40-mm twin was installed on the quarterdeck, but it did not take root there - they changed it to three Oerlikons.
    Since February 1943, the Fletchers were equipped with three twin Bofors and ten Oerlicons.
    By June 43, they had developed a unified standard to which all “fletchers” were rearmed in 43-44 - five twin Bofors and seven Oerlikons.
    The standard described by the author (from 2x4+3x2-40 mm and 4x2+3x1-20 mm) appeared only in the spring of 45 after Okinawa, when kamikazes did not give the Americans any life...

    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.

    The author again adjusts the picture to his vision of the world.
    One of the hits on "Roma" was in the area of ​​the bow magazines, for which even 320 kg of explosives would be enough with a head.
    And for reference: the German SC 250 carried a charge of 125 kg...
    1. +1
      10 May 2024 11: 05
      Yes, and in general, comparing “Fletchers” and sevens.... Is it somehow strange? And if you compare it with the ships of their time, the Americans are all overloaded and have a lot of problems. The range is good and the artillery is universal - yes. And for the rest everything is the same, plus or minus. The British have decent seaworthiness and range. Truly destroyers. Always with the squadron. But in terms of armament they are quite ordinary. The Germans started playing with boilers and turbines. They also wanted to cram in something that couldn’t be shoved in. They ruined everything for themselves. Italians? Yes, everything is also fine for your theater. In global average positions. Japanese. Yes, you can also accumulate shortcomings. But they fought without discounts.
      But the Fletcher is still a ship of a different generation and of a different size. Rich developed country.
      1. +1
        10 May 2024 12: 43
        Quote: MCmaximus
        Truly destroyers. Always with the squadron. But in terms of armament they are quite ordinary.

        I would say this, it would be good to read their log books...
        But this is not very good: unlike the Germans or Americans, the British are very tight-fisted when it comes to documents.
  25. +2
    9 May 2024 18: 04
    The author crap on some unknown, only known to him, headless authors - apparently competitors - and he himself concocted the same opus laughing
  26. +1
    10 May 2024 00: 22
    Where do you find these figures on Zen? And why are you answering them here?
  27. +2
    10 May 2024 06: 37
    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.

    However, the Italian battleship is still Roma, not Rome. Ship names are not translated.
  28. -4
    10 May 2024 09: 05
    Quote: hohol95
    The best solution for EM pr.7 was to re-equip it with B-34 guns and 37-mm machine guns + DShK in twin mounts.

    Which of these were in sufficient quantities on June 22, 1941?
    Or at the time of the start of production of 7/7U series destroyers?

    This is a planning problem. Admirals had to deal with the armament of their ships and not try to squeeze 130-mm guns intended for cruisers into the EM. When it was necessary, they very quickly set up production of the BS-3, for example, and 37-mm guns were available for other ships, for example PSKR.
    Actually, nothing has changed since then - who prevented the striped bastard from providing for the retrofitting of ships with additional air defense systems, for example, the TOR air defense system. Who prevented the installation of stabilized machine gun mounts with detection equipment on ships in two years? The answer - no one interfered.
    Not a single scum was even shot.
    1. 0
      11 May 2024 03: 43
      Quote: Dozorny severa
      Who prevented the installation of stabilized machine gun mounts with detection equipment on ships in two years? The answer is no one interfered.


      And what about GOA itself? Shoot geese? After all, such threats did not exist.
  29. +1
    10 May 2024 11: 52
    Thanks to Roman Skomorokhov from the USSR-Russian Navy for a smart and honest article! Russia had, has and will have a fleet... And the “sevens” occupied a worthy place in it... I will say one thing about the current so-called “experts”... There is a massive crisis of education and technical intelligence in the country, and hence the “degree of conceit” of these “experts”, in the past “dense C-grade students”, “who corrupted a physics and mathematics textbook in the school toilet, even at an “innocent age,” as our respected writer and humorist Mikhail Nikolaevich Zadornov said... And from here and articles - notes, even in the fields of VO, for “any taste and age” from conception in a test tube to problems of space - time, in quantum mechanics and problems of consciousness in relation to the brain from the pens of these “experts”. And about history, technology. , tactics and strategy in war are a separate “song”.... Thanks again, dear Roman Skomorokhov, for the competent statistics and honest military-technical analysis of our “sevens” on the 79th anniversary of the GREAT VICTORY!
  30. +3
    10 May 2024 14: 51
    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.


    I'm wildly sorry, but the twin Dopp LC/30 naval mount with 3,7-cm SK C/30 guns is, of course, better than the 21-K, but not by much. But 70-K already covers this example of the gloomy Teutonic genius, even taking into account the fact that there is no stabilization.

    By the way, about the stabilizer of the German installation. What they write in:
    The installation was equipped with a stabilization system in three planes using gyroscopes. The rotating parts of the installation were held along the guidance axes by stabilization power drives, compensating for the movement of the ship, the state of the sea, wind, speed and rudder action (roll, pitching, pitching, etc.). The Germans became pioneers in the creation of fully stabilized anti-aircraft installations, but the latter suffered from “childhood diseases”. When in September 1939 the destroyers Z-5 Paul Jakobi and Z-8 Bruno Heinemann were attacked off the island. Heligoland by British bombers, it was noted that weak gyroscopes did not always have time to compensate for the ship's frequent jerks. Even more troublesome was the impact of water on open installations, especially in Arctic waters, which led to short circuits in electrical circuits. Often the stabilization system was completely turned off by installation calculations. Despite constant improvement efforts, the installations have not eliminated their shortcomings.
    1. +3
      10 May 2024 16: 58
      Often the stabilization system was completely turned off by installation calculations.

      In general, the Germans understood this very well, so they had a separate crew number that worked as a “stabilizer”: it manually stabilized the installation by directly sighting the horizon.
      It would be interesting to read this friend's reviews... :)
      1. 0
        11 May 2024 04: 24
        There is not one left. Everyone has gone crazy. laughing
  31. +2
    10 May 2024 16: 38
    The relative weakness of the anti-aircraft weapons of the “sevens” was not due to the thoughtlessness of the admirals, but to the fact that the country did not have automatic guns in sufficient quantities. We began producing 37mm anti-aircraft guns in 1940, a little more than 500 of them were produced that year, the ship version began to be produced in 1941, and already in the summer of the same year these anti-aircraft guns began to be installed on ships. With 25 mm anti-aircraft guns everything was even worse. And thanks for all this should have been said to M.N. Tukhachevsky, who was responsible for the rearmament of the Red Army, only after his arrest did “machine guns” appear in the Red Army. As for the air defense of other destroyers, before the start of WWII we were not the only ones who had problems, and the “sevens” were no worse than many (the same “Jervis” was armed worse than the “sevens”; the “Englishman” had one outdated 40 mm “automatic machine” and several 12.7 machine guns - that’s nothing at all). - And the 76 mm anti-aircraft guns of our ships were not useless: large-caliber anti-aircraft guns shot down 4 thousand aircraft during the Second World War. which is far from small. During the Second World War, we could not pay as much attention to the fleet as England and America; we had enough other problems. As for the supposedly unhindered evacuation of German troops from Crimea, this is not true and, of course, it would have been quite enough to use: TK and aviation: it was not reasonable to lose heavy warships (we practically did not build them during the Second World War)..
    1. 0
      13 May 2024 13: 09
      Quote: Andrey A
      And thanks for all this should have been said to M.N. Tukhachevsky, who was responsible for the rearmament of the Red Army
      Well, not really - we didn’t have enough non-ferrous metal for cartridges in such quantities, and there were no machines that could bend brass for cartridges with such a large variable diameter - thanks to the Tsar, the civil war and the economic blockade of the USSR. As a result, by 1941, there were only about 37 4500-mm anti-aircraft shells in warehouses. Those. literally a 1-day ammunition load. Cases for 45 mm guns could be made on old machines, as the shape was without much transition. It was just necessary to convert the automation to a 45-mm caliber, which the industry could produce in large quantities. Which was done later.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 17: 17
        In the summer of 1941, there were 534 thousand rounds of 37 mm machine guns available, which is slightly more than the 4500 you wrote about. And the problems with the creation of 37 mm anti-aircraft guns were related, incl. and with the concept of M.N. Tukhachevsky universal gun:
        Since 1932, the design of 37-mm anti-aircraft guns was carried out in the design bureau under the leadership of M. N. Kondakov. The gun, designated AKT-37, was developed as a universal one, intended for use both as an anti-aircraft gun and as an aircraft cannon. The gun had a magazine feed (5 rounds each), a high rate of fire and low recoil; The disadvantages of the system were the complexity of its installation and adjustment, as well as the difficulty of loading. The AKT-37 prototype was manufactured in 1935, and in 1936 the gun underwent field testing as an aircraft cannon. For the anti-aircraft version of the gun, two types of carriages were developed - a three-frame two-wheeled LACT and a pedestal (for installation on cars and four-wheeled carts) TACT. In 1938, the AKT-37 was tested on the LACT and TACT carriages, following which work on them was stopped due to the unsuitability of the machine guns for long-term firing and the inappropriateness of their further development[6]. Since 1936, Kondakov has been working on modernizing the AKT-37 under the symbol ASCON-37, aimed at increasing the initial speed and rate of fire of the gun. In 1938, tests were carried out on a prototype gun, following which it was decided not to accept this machine gun for service due to the complexity of its design.

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/37-мм_автоматическая_зенитная_пушка_образца_1939_года_(61-К)

        The idea of ​​a universal weapon M.N. Tukhachevsky pushed when creating a divisional gun: it did not lead to anything good (you can also remember the epic with dynamo-reactive guns). The same can be said about the 37 mm machine gun: crossing an aircraft cannon with an anti-aircraft gun was a bad idea. The air cannon should be light, it should not be long-range, it should have a lightweight barrel. And the anti-aircraft gun must be long-range, able to withstand intense and prolonged shooting. In the end, it turned out to be zilch. And we provided the 37 mm machine gun with shells.
  32. 0
    10 May 2024 17: 24
    Another seven sweater in 38, when moving from Komsomolsk to Vladivostok, was thrown onto the rocks by a storm, where it was broken and, in general, was written off as a result
    1. 0
      10 May 2024 17: 31
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      Another seven sweater in 38, when moving from Komsomolsk to Vladivostok, was thrown onto the rocks by a storm, where it was broken and, in general, was written off as a result

      "Resolute", while towing we got into an 8-mile storm. The tug burst, they tried to go under their own power, but the cars stopped and the ship was thrown onto the rocks.
  33. 0
    11 May 2024 03: 13
    I immediately started scrolling through looking for the author’s name and yes, title master Skomorokhov
  34. 0
    11 May 2024 12: 07
    Article Cool! About “Crushing”, I also thought so, but an 11-POINT STORM?! This is on a 12-point scale, damn it, I can imagine (although no, I can’t imagine) what was going on there.
    1. 0
      11 May 2024 12: 42
      Quote: Arzt
      About “Crushing”, I also thought so, but an 11-POINT STORM?!

      Wind 11 points, waves - 8-9.
  35. 0
    11 May 2024 13: 02
    The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
  36. 0
    11 May 2024 16: 50
    From the "Sevens" transferred to China by the USSR came the modern Chinese Navy. And there are two “sevens” turned into a museum and the Chinese treat them accordingly. Honored veteran of the Navy, along with the T-34 and Katyusha. One "Thundering" is worth it.
  37. 0
    11 May 2024 18: 23
    During the first raid, "Besposhchadny" 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

    The Stukas also carried 1000 kg bombs; Marat, unfortunately, was a witness. sad
  38. 0
    12 May 2024 14: 34
    German bottom anchor mines

    So bottom, or anchor? Panties or a cross?
  39. +1
    12 May 2024 14: 36
    10 automatic air defense artillery barrels.

    The German 37 mm twin-arm, actually SEMI-AUTOMATIC, is loaded manually for each shot.
    1. +1
      12 May 2024 16: 02
      Quote: Grossvater
      German 37 mm twin, actually SEMI-AUTOMATIC

      Don’t pay attention, the author has something personal for the Germans: this mistake has been pointed out more than once.
  40. +2
    12 May 2024 14: 39
    Let's remove the British 102 mm anti-aircraft gun, it is the same pointless weapon as the Soviet 76 mm guns. What do we see?

    Well, firstly, the British installed their 4" instead of one of the torpedo tubes, or instead of one of the main battery installations on the Tribals.
    Secondly, why were these guns useless?
  41. 0
    12 May 2024 15: 59
    Sevens in the Chinese fleet were in service until the 80s and were armed with anti-ship missiles. No one in China complained about their design.
    1. 0
      12 May 2024 16: 15
      Quote: Kostadinov
      No one in China complained about their design.

      Do we have translated Chinese works on the “sevens” somewhere?
  42. 0
    13 May 2024 07: 05
    Quote: MCmaximus
    But the Fletcher is still a ship of a different generation and of a different size.

    The most important thing is the size. The designers were given a TTT, everything possible and impossible was done by the designers. The result was quite combat-ready ships. Even with anti-aircraft weapons, everything was not so bad.
    The seven's American peers only had machine guns in light anti-aircraft. The British have pom-poms without medium caliber.
    And even the panic with sevens and sevens U is quite understandable. Without an experimental ship, a large series is being built.
  43. +1
    13 May 2024 12: 51
    Where will the 37mm gyro-stabilized installation come from in the navy? That's why they installed 45-mm guns, because... lightweight, shells are available, and do not require an electrical supply. By the way, the Germans had 37-mm mounts on destroyers as semi-automatic ones in 1940, just like our 45-mm “fart guns”, only on a normal gyro-stabilized platform, but they were loaded manually. The same applies to the design bureau, which made universal 130-mm installations B-2LM and others in the evacuation at the Yurga station in the Kemerovo region. The problem with components and engineering personnel greatly slowed down the work. Moreover, the Italian documentation for such guns turned out to be crap, complex and non-functional, which at first led to a dead end.
  44. 0
    15 May 2024 20: 14
    A little about anti-aircraft weapons.
    Thus, British destroyers at the beginning of World War II had the following anti-aircraft weapons:
    "Trible" type: 40 mm a/u "pom-pon" - 1x4, 12,7 mm spu - 4x2;
    types “J” and “K”: 40 mm automatic “pom-pon” - 1x4, 12,7 mm automatic - 2x4;
    type “N”: 102-mm s/u – 1x1, 40-mm s/u “pom-pon” – 1x4, 20-mm s/u – 4x1, 12,7-mm s/u – 2x2.
    types “G”, “H” and “I”: 12,7 mm spool – 2x4.
    As you can see, destroyers of types "G", "H" and "I" were practically defenseless from air attacks. Therefore, during the war years, all ships (except those that died during the first days and months) urgently received additional air defense systems. Already during the war years! Basically, Oerlikons began to appear in large numbers on British destroyers by the end of 1941.
    American destroyers that entered service from 1937 to 1941 had the following air defense systems, including universal main-caliber artillery:
    "Benham" type: 127 mm u/u - 4x1, 12,7 mm spu - 4-7x1;
    "Bagley" type: 127 mm u/u - 4x1, 12,7 mm zpu - 4x1;
    "Sims" type: 127 mm u/u - 4x1, 12,7 mm u/u - 8x1 or 20 mm u/u - 6x1;
    "Benson" type: 127 mm u/u - 5x1, 12,7 mm zpu - 6x1.
    As you can see, there was a little more small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery than nothing.
    Fletcher-class destroyers had designed anti-aircraft weapons: 5x1 127-mm/38, 1x4 28-mm and 4x1 20-mm Oerlikon; in 1943, the standard of small-caliber anti-aircraft weapons was: 5x2 40-mm Bofors and 7x1 20-mm mm "Oerlikon". But this is already 1943, when the experience of the war showed how important it is to have powerful anti-aircraft weapons on destroyers. At the same time, British destroyers were mainly armed with 20-mm Oerlikons. For, unlike the “Americans,” there was almost no danger of meeting an enemy plane on the open sea. But the Fletchers could find themselves under attack from base coastal aviation from one of the many islands, and encounter carrier-based aircraft. Therefore, they critically needed relatively long-range small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery.
    On the other side of the front, in the Kriegsmarine, at first not everything was in order with anti-aircraft weapons. By June 22, 1941, the German Navy had destroyers of types 1934, 1934A, 1936 and 1936A. Their designed anti-aircraft weapons were:
    Type 1934: 37 mm semi-automatic S/30 installations - 2x2, 20 mm S/30 assault rifles - 6x1;
    Type 1934A: 37 mm semi-automatic C/30 installations - 2x2, 20 mm C/30 submachine guns - 6x1;
    Type 1936: 37 mm semi-automatic S/30 installations - 2x2, 20 mm S/30 assault rifles - 6x1;
    Type 1936A: 37 mm semi-automatic C/30 - 2x2, 20 mm C/30 submachine guns - 5x1.
    In general, the designed anti-aircraft weapons of the Kriegsmarine destroyers were clearly insufficient. 37-mm semi-automatic guns (the most interesting thing is that for some reason in the Kriegsmarine 37-mm semi-automatic S/30 guns were called anti-aircraft guns) had a practical rate of fire of no more than 30 rounds per minute (15 per barrel) and did not have remote fuses. Their only (theoretical) advantage was their placement on gyro-stabilized platforms in three planes. However, in practice, the large weight of the installations and the weakness of the gyroscopic drives made it difficult to track the sharp evolutions of the ship. And electrical equipment constantly short-circuited due to moisture.
    Nevertheless, with tenacity worthy of better use, the 37-mm C/30 installations continued to be installed on German destroyers and the next series - type 1936A (Mob), laid down and built during the war. And only the destroyers of the 1936B (Mob) series initially received real anti-aircraft 37-mm twin M/42 machine guns.
    The design armament of the last two series of Kriegsmarine destroyers was:
    Type 1936A (Mob): 37 mm semi-automatic C/30 – 2x2, 20 mm quad LC/38 – 2x4, 20 mm C/38 – 2-4x1;
    Type 1936B (Mob): 37 mm twin Flak M42U assault rifles on the DLM 42U installation - 2x2, 20 mm quadruple LC/38 assault rifles - 3x4, 20 mm automatic S/38 - 2x1.
    Of particular note are the quad LC/38 Vierling assault rifles. At close ranges, their total rate of fire of up to 880 rounds per minute made them an exceptionally formidable weapon.
    So the weakness of anti-aircraft weapons was not exclusive to Soviet destroyers.
    At approximately the same time as the Fletchers, the Soviet Navy had the following anti-aircraft weapons:
    "Leningrad", 1944: 76,2 mm universal installations (u/u) 81-K - 1x2, 76,2 mm u/u 34-K - 2x1, 37 mm automatic installations (a/u) 70-k – 4x1, 37-mm German semi-automatic S/30 – 1x2, 12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounts (ZPU) DShK – 4x1;
    "Minsk", 1944: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K - 2x1, 37 mm u/u 70-k - 6x1, 12,7 mm zpu DShK - 6x1;
    “Baku” 1944: 76,2 mm a/u 34-K – 2x1, 37-mm a/u 70-k – 6x1 (by January 1945 the number of the 37th a/u was 10x1), 12,7 mm ZPU DShK – 6x1;
    “Kharkov”, 1943: 76,2 mm a/u 34-K – 2x1, 37 mm a/u 70-k – 6x1, 12,7 mm a/u “Colt-Browning” – 6x2;
    “Valerian Kuibyshev”, “Uritsky”, “Karl Liebknecht”, Northern Fleet, 1944: 45-mm semi-automatic (s/a) 21-KM - 2x1, 37-mm a/u 70-K - 2x1, 20- mm a/u "Oerlikon" - 2x1, 12,7-mm ZPU DShK - 2x1;
    “Nezamozhnik”, “Zheleznyakov”, Black Sea Fleet, 1943: 76,2 mm Lender anti-aircraft guns - 2x1, 45 mm p/a 21-K - 2x1, 37-mm a/u 70-K - 5x1, 20-mm a/u "Oerlikon" - 2x1, 12,7-mm ZPU DShK - 2x1;
    All Project 7 EMs of the Northern Fleet 1942-1944: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K – 2x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K – 4x1, 12,7 mm zpu DShK – 2x1, 12,7, 2-mm ZPU "Colt-Browning" - 2xXNUMX;
    EM project 7 “Threatening” 1943-1944. Baltic Fleet: 76,2 mm a/u 34-K – 3x1, 37 mm a/u 70-K – 4x1, 12,7 mm zpu DShK – 4x1;
    Project 7 EM, Black Sea Fleet, 1943-1944: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K – 3x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K – 5x1, 12,7 mm zpu DShK – 2x1, 12,7 .2-mm ZPU "Colt-Browning" - 2xXNUMX;
    EM project 7u Baltic Fleet 1944-1945: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K – 3x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K – 6x1, 12,7 mm zpu DShK – 4x1;
    EM project 7u "Storozhevoy" 1944, Baltic Fleet: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K - 3x1, 45 mm p/a 21-KM - 2x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K - 4x1 , 12,7 mm ZPU DShK – 4x1;
    EM project 7u "Strong", Baltic Fleet, 1942: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K - 2x1, 45 mm p/a 21-KM - 3x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K - 2x1, 20-mm a/u "Oerlikon" - 2x1, 12,7-mm spu DShK - 4x1, 12-7-mm spu "Vickers" - 1x4;
    EM project 7u “Ferocious”, Baltic Fleet, 1943: 76,2 mm u/u 34-K – 3x1, 45 mm p/a 21-K – 2x1, 37 mm u/u 70-K – 2x1, 20-mm a/u "Oerlikon" - 4x1, 12,7-mm spu DShK - 3x1, 12,7-mm spu "Colt-Browning" - 2x2;
    EM project 7u “Savvy”, “Sposobny”, Black Sea Fleet, 1943: 76,2 mm a/u 34-K – 2x1, 37-mm a/u 70-K – 7x1, 12,7 mm zpu "Colt-Browning" - 2x2.
    As we see during the war, as in the fleets of other states, there was a constant strengthening of anti-aircraft weapons. True, the experience of the war showed that no matter what anti-aircraft weapons were, without air cover, the duel between aviation and ships in most cases ended in favor of aviation.
    1. 0
      15 May 2024 22: 23
      Quote: Panzerjager
      37-mm semi-automatic guns (the most interesting thing is that for some reason the Kriegsmarine called the 37-mm semi-automatic S/30 guns anti-aircraft guns)

      To be precise, they were not called “anti-aircraft guns”, but Schnelladekanone - rapid-fire guns.

      Quote: Panzerjager
      had a practical rate of fire of no more than 30 rounds per minute (15 per barrel),

      In range conditions - 80 rounds per minute per installation, in ship conditions - up to 50, but this required adding two more loaders to the calculation.

      Quote: Panzerjager
      Nevertheless, with tenacity worthy of better use, the 37-mm C/30 installations continued to be installed on German destroyers and the next series - type 1936A (Mob), laid down and built during the war.

      Because there was no other “medium” caliber MZA installation in hardware at the time of construction of the mobilization version of “Narviki”. "Bofors" under the name Flak-28 also has not yet entered production.

      Quote: Panzerjager
      And only the destroyers of the 1936B (Mob) series initially received real anti-aircraft 37-mm twin M/42 machine guns.

      The project included the same 37-cm SK C/30, but since the completion of three hulls took place in 43-44, the C\30 was changed to M/42

      Quote: Panzerjager
      The design armament of the last two series of Kriegsmarine destroyers was

      According to the project, the anti-aircraft weapons EM type 1936A (Mob) repeated the basic design: 2x2 37-mm S/30, 5x1 20-mm S/30
      According to the project, the anti-aircraft weapons of the EM type 1936B (Mob) were: 2x2 37 mm S/30, 3x4 + 3x1 20 mm S/30.