Workhorses of the Stalin breed

95
Workhorses of the Stalin breed
"Seven" - the extraordinary adventures of Italians in Russia


The pre-war destroyers of Project 7 cannot be called successful. Even without going into such high matters as ship electronics, features of the main power plant, artillery weapons and the like. The Reshitelny, having hit the rocks, broke into three pieces, the Sokrushitelny sank on November 22, 1942, after its stern fell off in a storm - inexperienced Soviet shipbuilders made mistakes when calculating the strength of the hull (more precisely, they thoughtlessly copied the calculations of the Italians, since the "sevens" were built according to the type of the Italian destroyer Maestrale, but in the Mediterranean Sea there are no storms like in the North).



But the most important thing is that there were few of them! During the war, 34 destroyers of this project were lost, and another 30 were not completed.

In general, at the very beginning of the Cold War, the Soviet Navy found itself without the “workhorses” that it had navy At that time there were destroyers. True, destroyers of project 41 were in the design stage, but designing is a long process, and the ships were needed yesterday...


"Thirty bis" was not afraid of either the North or the Mediterranean Sea...

Then they took the pre-war Project 30 and brought it to perfection.

The fact is that Project 30 was a development of the same "seven" and inherited all its shortcomings, including the flimsy "Mediterranean" hull. In TsKB-17, under the leadership of Arved Lyudvigovich Fisher, they took the successful main power plant, artillery and main systems and mechanisms of the "thirty", and then packed it all into a new hull.

The hull was designed based on the hulls of captured German destroyers, but their shortcomings were eliminated during the design, such as poor seaworthiness due to the overloaded bow. As a result, the hull turned out to be excellent - strong and seaworthy.

The caliber of the anti-aircraft artillery was increased to 85 mm (the "sevens" and "thirties" had a maximum of 76 mm anti-aircraft guns), installing 1x2 92-K mount, additionally installing 4x2 37 mm V-11 anti-aircraft guns (or 7x1 37 mm 70-K gun mounts) and 3x2 25 mm 2M-3M. The main caliber was left the same as on the "thirties" (and before them on the legendary leader "Tashkent") - two B-2LM turrets with a pair of 130 mm guns in each. The torpedo tubes also became five-tube, instead of three-tube on their predecessors.

The Tamir-5M hydroacoustic station, two BMB-2 bomb throwers and two bomb release devices with 51 depth charges were intended for combating submarines. The destroyer could also lay mines: 52 KB-3 mines or 60 M-26 mines were taken on board. The speed was slightly reduced in comparison with the Project 30, but this was of no particular importance - the reduction was noticeable only in calm waters; in a stormy sea, the seaworthy Thirty Bis made the Italians do what a sprinter does to a pedestrian.


"Smel'y" in the Neva

The lead destroyer of Project 30 bis "Smely" was accepted into the Soviet Navy on December 21, 1949 - on Stalin's birthday. In total, 1948 ships of this project were built from 1953 to 70 - the largest series in stories There was no Russian or Soviet shipbuilding either before or after (the Americans even built fewer Arleigh Burke-class destroyers – 68 units).

The ships were built at factories No. 200 named after 61 Communards in Nikolaev, No. 199 named after the Lenin Komsomol in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, No. 190 named after A. A. Zhdanov in Leningrad, and No. 402 in Molotovsk (now Severodvinsk).


A solid ship deserves solid combat services. "Solid" in the Mediterranean.

The life of the "thirty bis" was long and eventful!

These ships formed the basis of the Soviet fleet in the 50s and 60s, remained in service in the 70s and 80s, and some hulls were decommissioned in the 90s! The last destroyer of this project was excluded from the fleet lists in 2002 – it lived out its last years as a training destroyer. But this was in the domestic Navy. And they served not only in their homeland: the ships were transferred to Indonesia – 8 units, the United Arab Republic (there was such a country, if anyone does not remember: it included Syria and Egypt) – 5 units, Poland – 2 units, Bulgaria – 1 unit.


On radar patrol...

Some destroyers were converted into Project 31 radar picket ships, but the rest were not modernized. The fact is that on Project 30 bis destroyers, the onboard electrical network operated on direct current (for modernization with the installation of a missile weapons Project 56 destroyers with an AC network were more suitable).


Full face

The overall assessment of the project is ambivalent.

On the one hand, these were ships that were already obsolete at the design stage – a palliative that made it possible not to leave the Navy without ships until the destroyers of Project 41 and later entered service.

But on the other hand... These were very good ships: beautiful (an ugly ship cannot sail well on the sea), powerful, seaworthy.

In addition, these destroyers became a "school desk" for many commanders of units - on the way to admiral's shoulder straps, it is imperative to pass the step of "ship commander", and numerous "thirty bis" provided motivated officers with such an opportunity. Moreover, it is much easier to learn the structure of a ship on a destroyer than on a cruiser - it is smaller...


In full dress!

One of the destroyer brigades of the Black Sea Fleet was even unofficially called "royal" - it was once commanded by the future Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy S. G. Gorshkov. Serving here was considered promising in terms of career, and the destroyers were maintained with special chic: the hulls were painted a unique light-ball color, and the rails, anchor capstans and chains were completely white.

And the names on them were written in letters larger than on regular ships, like on the pre-war "sevens". The Baltic and Black Sea "thirty bis" had two-digit side numbers, the Northern and Pacific ones had three-digit numbers. In addition, not a single destroyer of this project was named in honor of any party congress, Komsomol congress, or deceased member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee: they all bore exclusively standard names for the Russian and Soviet fleets in the form of adjectives.


At the end of a career. Inkerman 1986...

The quality of the 30 bis project is best illustrated by the fact that during their long service life they did not bring a single major problem, much less a catastrophe, to the USSR Navy. Easy to operate, reliable as a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Durable!

In 1973, Seryozhny was docked at the Poti shipyard. A storm wind tore a floating crane off the opposite wall, which passed through the bay and crashed into the starboard side of the destroyer in the bow. A weaker ship could have easily sunk from such a blow, but the thirty bis escaped with a hole above the waterline one and a half meters long and a quarter of a meter wide.

And the successful hull design made the destroyers of this project some of the quietest surface ships of the USSR Navy. At least, this is what the underwater noise specialist, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Captain 1st Rank V. N. Parkhomenko, thought.

As for the shortcomings, at least some of them were smoothed out by good crew training. A textbook example is how a pair of "thirty bis" drove the British submarine Opportune of the Oberon class.

Here is how it was...


In profile...

On June 23, 1965, in the Norwegian Sea, the Northern Fleet decided to do something a little different – ​​train. The British diesel-electric submarine Opportune decided to observe the exercises. But nearby were a pair of Soviet Project 30 bis destroyers (NATO-style “Skorii” class), which were busy discouraging all curious people from the training process.

To begin with, Opportune, being unnoticed, decided to photograph the exercises through the periscope and record the noise of the Soviet ships' propellers and the work of the destroyers' sonars on a tape recorder. But suddenly the boat realized that it had been discovered.

The submarine commander was fidgeting like an eel: he went into the depths, maneuvered at a low speed, but all he achieved was that the caring Northern Fleet sailors began to throw explosive charges overboard, simulating depth charge bombing during exercises. The persistent Englishman tried to break away for 30 hours, but the Soviet destroyers were nearby the whole time and pretended that they were just having a walk.

Eventually, with her battery completely drained, Opportune was forced to surface. After surfacing, the destroyers took up positions on both sides of the submarine and gently escorted her by the arms out of the training area.

One of the destroyer commanders thanked the submarine for their fruitful joint work, the second took a photo of the Opportune's side number - for a long memory, after which he handed over a long light semaphore, which the British could not make out (something about someone's mother, I think).
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    28 September 2024 06: 41
    Maybe someday they'll make a decent movie based on this incident.
    1. +35
      28 September 2024 06: 56
      We don't have a single film adaptation of the Battle of Tsushima or the siege of Port Arthur. That's where we should start... You could make such an epic film there, you'd watch it with bated breath. But they still churn out cheap soap.
      1. 0
        28 September 2024 07: 07
        Quote from: FoBoss_VM
        But they still make cheap soap.
        As is demand, so is supply...
        1. +27
          28 September 2024 11: 14
          The most striking figure is the construction of 70 destroyers in five years under Stalin (!). Here we have the achievement of building four frigates 22350 in 20 years. Apparently this is the difference between Stalin and Putin.
          1. +9
            28 September 2024 15: 10
            The most striking figure is the construction of 70 destroyers in five years (!) under Stalin.
            - quite comparable with the current productivity of Chinese shipyards
            1. +5
              28 September 2024 17: 19
              So why shouldn't Russia order at least a couple of destroyers from China? They ordered landing ships from the French, and they weren't shy. At least the Chinese, unlike the French, won't screw you over. And they'll build them quickly.
              1. +3
                28 September 2024 17: 22
                I would order ten corvettes instead of two destroyers
                1. +8
                  28 September 2024 17: 27
                  No, it is impossible to compare a destroyer with a corvette, even in terms of seaworthiness. A destroyer (modern) is an ocean-going ship. A corvette is a close-in sea-going ship. In addition, a destroyer is a strategic ship due to its air defense and missile defense. In addition, a destroyer is a ship that fights enemy strategic submarines, intercepting them before they reach a strike position. How can a corvette be compared to it? They are not even close to being related.
                  1. +8
                    28 September 2024 17: 43
                    so our coastal zone in the Far East is half empty, open the list of the Pacific Fleet and count, of the modern ships there are only FIVE corvettes, everything else is a legacy from the USSR, and then open the map, what the hell are intercepting strategic submarines? the Japanese will smear our Pacific Fleet on the orders of their older brothers because there are no ships
                    1. +4
                      28 September 2024 22: 03
                      Read that answer again. And remember how many destroyers the Japanese have, and how many we have in all fleets combined, including the Uada and Soviet large anti-submarine ships. But the fact that the Japanese have a strong fleet does not cancel out the nuclear strategic submarines of the US, France, and even Britain, no matter how many of them they have left. And destroyers are desperately needed both on the Pacific Fleet and on the Northern Fleet. We can't slide down to a mosquito fleet. And now all we have are these Buyans and Karakurts. With subsonic Kalibras, without anti-submarine, and without real anti-aircraft weapons. Do you want to fight Japan with this? A corvette is not much different from them. At least frigates. At least.
                      1. +4
                        29 September 2024 05: 06
                        You don't have to persuade me bully
                        Moscow, Kremlin ******
                      2. +5
                        29 September 2024 09: 13
                        And remember how many destroyers the Japanese have, and how many we have in all fleets combined, including the Uada and Soviet large anti-submarine ships.

                        What destroyers? What strategic submarines of the enemy? Enemy submarines are constantly on duty at our bases, which take aim at every SSBN of ours that goes out to sea, and we simply have no way to detect them or drive them away! These boats conduct covert and not very covert surveillance of our strategic submarines with weapons, and their anti-submarine aircraft join them at sea.
                        Therefore, we should at least saturate the fleet with a sufficient number of anti-submarine corvettes with air defense capabilities in order to cover our SSBNs at least at the exit from bases and in the BMZ, where their destroyers will not be able to approach, given that we have anti-submarine corvettes capable of detecting them and providing targeting information for coastal anti-submarine missiles and naval aviation carrying anti-submarine missiles.
                        For us now a brigade of 6 ASW corvettes is much more necessary than one destroyer at a comparable cost! Naturally, we also need 22350 frigates, first of all as the basis of search groups of ASW corvettes. One brigade of ASW corvettes reinforced by one frigate can already provide a more or less safe exit and deployment of SSBNs, and this is now the most important task of our entire fleet.
                      3. +1
                        29 September 2024 09: 27
                        You are so one-sided. So, the enemy is creating problems for us to get our SSBNs out of the base. And what about us? Should we do nothing but defend ourselves all the time? Maybe we will also dare to create problems for the enemy? Of course, you can write me off as a dreamer. But since Brezhnev's time, we have ceased to be an ocean power. We cannot rely on corvettes alone. They will not be able to intercept strategic missiles from the sea. And the enemy's submarines may not approach at a distance where their corvettes can attack. Why would they need them? Coastal complexes, naval aviation - all this is great, of course. Only their range of destruction is not impressive today. And there is so much aviation... As for money. Let me remind you that I suggested ordering at least a couple of destroyers from the Chinese. Because we ourselves will be building them for twenty years, and they will really cost an astronomical amount. Why? M. Delyagin answered this question. If you order from the Chinese, at least the problem voiced by M. Delyagin will be removed. And the amount will be sharply reduced.
                      4. +2
                        29 September 2024 09: 50
                        You are getting excited and trying to put the cart before the horse. We certainly need destroyers, but the primary task is still to cover our BMZ, without which the stability of the entire naval component of the SNF is lost.
                        With competent leadership of the country and adequate planning of the construction of the fleet, we are able to build a fleet independently, for this we have everything except competent leadership. An anti-submarine warfare corvette can be designed from the Karakurt missile system using existing systems and weapons, and its construction can begin at several shipyards at almost Soviet rates, and this is realistic, as is the possibility of saturating the fleet with them in ten years. The main problem for such a corvette is the engine.
                        Frigates 22350 can also be built much faster and not only at the Severnaya Verf but also in the Far East where the shipyard is almost ready to build them and in Kaliningrad at Yantar instead of frigates 11356. But again, the problem is in the engine. It is necessary either to transfer it completely to gas turbine engines or to modernize the entire diesel engine industry, which is unrealistic with our government.
                        And destroyers... the most realistic thing is to increase the frigate 22350 to the dimensions of a destroyer, which is basically what they are trying to do at the Northern Shipyard. It is clear that it only needs to be equipped with a gas turbine and the incompetent management of both the Northern Shipyard and the entire USC and UEC need to be changed.
                        And the Chinese won't sell us anything, at least for now, in general we need to clearly understand that no one will build us a fleet except us. And our whole problem is again only in incompetent and criminal management, there are no other reasons for the weakness of our fleet.
                      5. +6
                        29 September 2024 11: 56
                        Hmm... As a person who served on the Pacific Fleet SSBN, I will note: not everything is so clear-cut. Detection greatly depends on the submarine's speed, for example, on our wildly noisy 667B, the maximum quiet speed was somewhere around 2-3 knots, if my memory serves me right. And, on our "bukas" we managed to make "Los Angeleses" - you just need to be well versed in the local (we sailed in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk) hydrology and have a good acoustician. I repeat: on the boat that you called "roaring cow" for its "unique acoustic characteristics", a well-trained crew with a smart commander made a much more modern multi-purpose boat. Now even nuclear submarines are an order of magnitude quieter. And there are also diesel engines, which are an order of magnitude quieter than any nuclear submarine, both ours and the enemy's...
                      6. +2
                        30 September 2024 11: 09
                        But there are also diesel engines, which are an order of magnitude quieter than any nuclear submarines, both ours and the enemy's...

                        The only problem is that NATO uses modern systems to search for submarines that are not based on the noise level of the submarines.
                  2. -1
                    29 September 2024 15: 51
                    Please clarify what submarine strike positions are we talking about? As far as I understand, modern submarines can fire off their entire strategic ammunition load from their assigned pier without going out to sea.
          2. +2
            28 September 2024 18: 06
            Quote: ramzay21
            frigate 22350

            Agree that it is more reasonable to compare these frigates with the construction of Soviet cruisers in terms of complexity. And the analogues of the "30s" are still today's corvettes
            1. +2
              28 September 2024 18: 24
              Well, that's actually how it is
            2. 0
              29 September 2024 08: 53
              Agree that it is more reasonable to compare these frigates with the construction of Soviet cruisers in terms of complexity.

              Cruisers are more like modern destroyers, which the current Russian Federation does not build at all.
              And the analogues of the "30s" are still the current corvettes

              Even if you start comparing them to corvettes and how many of those corvettes have been built in 20 years?
              1. +4
                29 September 2024 12: 11
                The number of ships depends on the number of tasks for them. Corvettes are ships of the near sea zone (no, they go from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, of course, but they are not made for such trips). And to cover this very near sea zone, they are... not that sufficient, but, to some extent, more or less. And the distant sea zone... The question arises: does Russia have immediate interests in it? Let me remind you that the Project 667A submarines went to the ocean only because their missiles could not reach the USA. The Pacific 667B could finish them off from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and did not go anywhere further. And the main task of surface ships is to cover the firing areas of the SSBNs, and the Gorshkovskiy of the USSR Navy (its surface component) was sharpened precisely for this task. Hence the large number of large anti-submarine ships - to protect the SSBNs from American multi-purpose SSBNs (so many were not needed to catch enemy SSBNs).
              2. 0
                29 September 2024 13: 37
                Quote: ramzay21
                Cruisers are more like modern destroyers, which the current Russian Federation does not build at all.

                Cruisers were also different, a light cruiser of that time and a heavy one, these are two completely different combat machines. So, a modern destroyer is most likely an analogue of a heavy or battle cruiser of that time
              3. 0
                Yesterday, 04: 47
                Whining again.
                They howled under the USSR that the tsarist legacy was used by the Stalinist regime plus foreign technologies, and now we are chewing up the technologies of the USSR. But there have been no inter-republican cooperations for a long time. Everything is being done anew.
            3. +4
              29 September 2024 12: 02
              I completely agree, it is impossible to compare technologically destroyers developed in the late 40s (which were already a bit outdated back then) and modern corvettes - different levels of complexity in everything...
          3. +3
            28 September 2024 19: 37
            Under Putin, residential towers-ghettos of 20+ floors with 1 elevator for 150 apartments and 10 studio-pencils of 15 square meters for a "prosperous" "family" life are being built very quickly and en masse. Compare the names "Stalinka", "Khrushchevka", "Brezhnevka" and "Putinka". Repeat more often and there will be no disappointments.
            1. +1
              30 September 2024 09: 26
              Yeah, enough of this nonsense. They build all sorts of things. There's not a lot of normal housing. If you don't like the prices in the capital, go somewhere cheaper. You'll live in a mansion.
              1. +4
                30 September 2024 12: 06
                You are talking nonsense, you who point-blank don’t
                you see the complete degradation of the housing construction sector in the country. Not only are they building concrete pencil cases and capsules, but they have also created all the conditions for people to sell themselves into mortgage slavery, trying to pay crazy money for a concrete pencil case. And in an open field without infrastructure and work, live yourself for three kopecks. You will like it.
                1. +2
                  30 September 2024 15: 54
                  I live in the boondocks. In a nice house. Good area. It's enough for me. Close to good neighbors. With work, by the way.
                  Which I wish to everyone.
                  And I wish you not to be whiners.
                  And yes. In the Brezhnev, Chernenko-Andropov years, I lived pretty badly. There's nothing special to remember. Except for friends and a few other things that still existed then.
                  1. +1
                    1 October 2024 07: 58
                    I wish all the guardians of the social Darvirist system to be successfully eaten by a more successful competitor. And so I, like you - for everything good, against everything bad. Have a good mood, material well-being. Hang in there, in your backwater with work.
                    1. -1
                      1 October 2024 15: 29
                      And may you not be ill. Dream about the past. It's uplifting.
          4. +6
            29 September 2024 11: 47
            It is worth remembering that the 30 bis is a fairly simple project. No electronics, no gas turbines. By and large, these are wartime ships, and they were built by people who remembered that there was no time for frills during war. The sappers explained to me how to distinguish the remains of a pre-war rifle raised from the ground from those from wartime: wartime ones do not have a stock with a butt (and the metal parts are much more heavily corroded) - the quality of the wood and its processing is greatly reduced...
            1. +4
              29 September 2024 11: 59
              This project is simple for today, but for the end of the forties, when the country lay in ruins, there was no income from oil in sight, and the Chinese, like the new allies in Eastern Europe, also needed our help, again because they were also lying in ruins after the war, the construction of such a series was a feat.
              Yes, they were not so simple for their time and against the background of steamships they were also the pinnacle of technology. In any case, then they did not nod at the complexity and did not justify doing nothing, especially since the same Chinese calmly produce "complex" destroyers, frigates and corvettes at a fast pace and in large quantities, which means that the problem is not in the complexity at all, but either in sabotage and sabotage or in the complete professional incompetence of our leadership. As we see from the same Chinese, there are no other reasons.
              1. +4
                29 September 2024 12: 24
                I saw those Chinese destroyers at sea. In my opinion, the quality of the propulsion plant is so-so. As for mass production, they need it! The PRC is the world's factory, which means they are interested in world maritime trade, and they are afraid that this trade could be cut off from them...
                1. 0
                  29 September 2024 12: 58
                  They simply have destroyers and already have two AUGs, which means they have something to project force with, and they also have enough ASW corvettes, frigates and minesweepers to completely cover the issues of ASW, anti-aircraft defense and air defense in the near sea zone.
                  Their coastline is no larger than our coastline in the Pacific Fleet's area of ​​responsibility, where Magadan, Kamchatka and Chukotka are essentially the same islands as Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, communications with which we simply have nothing to cover and, in your opinion, do not need! And of course you support the saboteurs and blockheads who led to this? And who will pay with their lives for the consequences of their activities?
                2. +2
                  30 September 2024 09: 29
                  The point is that they have maritime trade. And they have shipping along the coast. They control a large chunk of the world's maritime trade. So they don't have to look for tasks for the fleet.
                  We don't have this at all. That's why we are always inventing tasks for the fleet. One more stupid than the other. The situation changes, the task dies out. And the fleet goes into decline. And so on in a circle.
          5. +5
            29 September 2024 12: 59
            Dear "ramzay21"! The difference is not in Stalin and Putin, the difference is in the socio-economic systems, ideology and state goal-setting... I.V. Stalin sat on "one chair" - socialism, and the current leadership is trying to sit on two at once: state-oligarchic capitalism with a "Gagarin smile" and the Swedish model of liberal socialism, which is very inconvenient for those sitting and is fraught with all sorts of unpredictable problems.... About ideology - everything is clear... For us, it is outside the law... With goal-setting, too, it is complicated and ambiguous... The new Russian "boyars", coupled with the industrial-financial "nobility", are "mired" in liberalism, "Eurovalues", and theft, which seriously affects the development of state goal-setting and the embodiment of all THIS in "bronze and marble".... That's how it is...
          6. +3
            30 September 2024 09: 23
            In Nikolaev, they used scaffolding to hold the sheets of sheathing by hand and fasten them. It was a monstrously difficult job.
        2. +5
          28 September 2024 16: 03
          As is demand, so is supply...
          - neither the government, nor AvtoVAZ, nor directors listen to the people, they shove in what they think is necessary, and then they get offended when they are cursed. There is demand, after all.
      2. +2
        28 September 2024 07: 38
        We have a film about the Varyag.
        1. +20
          28 September 2024 11: 29
          We have a film about the Varyag.
          Not we, but Stalin's USSR has such a film. We have the hackneyed "Admiral"
      3. +12
        28 September 2024 08: 43
        That's true, how many good stories were ruined in the process of spending money on "patriotic" new projects.
        One continuous mediocrity, a run-of-the-mill movie, mediocre actors, silicone nurses, a gangster-like operative.
        Russian cinema remains in the 90s.
        In general, it's a typical way of spending money.
      4. +5
        28 September 2024 09: 31
        What is there to film?
        About the most shameful defeat, which in the history of fleets can be counted on the fingers?
        1. +8
          28 September 2024 19: 40
          well, the Americans were able to make, um... a decent film about Pearl Harbor and who's stopping them from making a normal film about Varyag and Steregushchiy... and Moonzund... comrades THIS is not a film about RIF this is... in general, where are our talents (not about the lads or the cops) and about our history as it is or not???
          1. -1
            28 September 2024 19: 44
            Well, go ahead and film it, but first read the real story about how things went with the Varyag.
          2. +1
            30 September 2024 15: 57
            Just don't talk about Moonzund. Don't. That plot will only turn into "Admiral". Don't stir up controversial things.
      5. +17
        28 September 2024 11: 11
        We don't have a single film adaptation of the Battle of Tsushima or the siege of Port Arthur

        If you make a film about Tsushima, especially based on the book by Novikov-Priboy, a participant in those events, it will show the whole disgusting essence of tsarism and the rotten system of the Russian Empire, it will explain the true reason for the three revolutions and people will draw bad parallels with the current government and the current system. And this is dangerous. It is better to make a vomit about Kolchak and present this freak and foreign lackey as a romantic hero.
        1. -3
          28 September 2024 15: 17
          and a foreign lackey
          - and the revolutionaries who received funding from foreign powers before 1917, weren't they foreign lackeys? Is that something else?
          1. -6
            28 September 2024 16: 20
            Shh! There's a necropatriot here. The adherents of this religious movement are distinguished by extreme fanaticism and a complete inability to hold an adequate discussion. Be careful, or you'll get spit all over yourself.
          2. +1
            1 October 2024 01: 24
            Don't confuse revolutionaries with the Russian Empire's own corrupt bourgeoisie, who, together with the churchmen, happily pushed Nicholas No. 2 into inferno.
          3. 0
            Yesterday, 06: 22
            - And the revolutionaries who received funding from foreign powers before 1917, weren’t they foreign lackeys?
            Can you be more specific? Which power financed Russian revolutionaries before 1917?!
            1. 0
              Yesterday, 09: 25
              UK, USA, France, Japan, Germany
              1. 0
                Yesterday, 14: 31
                Can you provide specific numbers and names of the recipients?!
      6. +1
        29 September 2024 13: 11
        Ask anyone under 25 about these battles, and God willing, you will hear the correct answer only from every third or fourth person.
      7. +5
        30 September 2024 02: 03
        We don't have a single film adaptation of the Battle of Tsushima or the siege of Port Arthur

        There are many things missing... There is nothing about the Crimean War. There is nothing about the Russo-Japanese War either. There is nothing about the Turkish wars of the 19th century. Only old Soviet films glorified the victory of the Russian army and navy...
    2. +5
      28 September 2024 09: 25
      There were many similar incidents during the Cold War.
      1. +1
        28 September 2024 09: 26
        Excellent project. The most important thing is that not a single ship was lost due to an accident.
        1. 0
          28 September 2024 21: 25
          And the main caliber wasn't universal? It seems that in the Second World War it became the norm for the main caliber to also be anti-aircraft. Why just carry 130 mm if air defense of the order is one of the main tasks of the destroyer?
          1. +3
            28 September 2024 22: 18
            Quote: dauria
            And the main caliber wasn't universal? It seems that in the Second World War it became the norm for the main caliber to also be anti-aircraft.

            No, it wasn't. And where did it become the norm? On battleships? wink
            Seriously, the Americans and Japanese had universal 127 mm, but you need to understand that these were very weak 5 inches, both in terms of projectile weight and ballistics. The Russian 5 inch (130 mm) is much closer in power to 6 inch guns. There were attempts to make it universal, but it turned out to be something monstrous, so they preferred separate barrels for air defense. And they underestimated the threat from the air before WWII.
          2. +3
            30 September 2024 16: 03
            At that moment they couldn't do it. They decided to build it this way. Otherwise there would be nothing at all.
            If you approach this project as a new ship, then the criticism is justified. But then we had nothing. And other fleets had more than enough of such ships. Not new, yes. It turns out that with those cruisers and destroyers we simply caught up with the former allied fleets in old ships. And that's not bad either. If we had sat still, we would have lost our competence again, like after the revolution
            Still, Comrade Stalin understood something about the development of the country.
    3. +5
      28 September 2024 12: 04
      Quote: 75Sergey
      Maybe someday they'll make a decent movie based on this incident.
      Better not. Not now, at least.
  2. +9
    28 September 2024 06: 57
    I really enjoy reading it, respect and admiration to the author hi
  3. +5
    28 September 2024 07: 24
    The publications on marine topics have been depressing lately. As I understand it, they decided to retell Wikipedia here on VO?
    Yes, if Andrey and Chelyabinsk wrote about this topic, there would be a detailed analysis, comparison. And what battles in the comments. There would be.
    It's sad, gentlemen writers. The level of articles has fallen critically.
    1. +5
      28 September 2024 14: 38
      The publications on marine topics have been making a depressing impression lately.

      In nature, everything is interconnected. The level of the authors is determined by the level of the audience.
    2. 0
      29 September 2024 02: 48
      Dashyan, Patyanin and other authors of historical research don’t come here?
      1. +2
        30 September 2024 12: 12
        Quote: Grencer81
        Dashyan, Patyanin and other authors of historical research don’t come here?

        Why do they need it?
  4. +12
    28 September 2024 07: 42
    On such a destroyer, in a cadet practice in Liepricons of the DKBF and the old man, in the punishment, “drove into the hold” to draw a mazet from a broken tank.
    1. +7
      28 September 2024 07: 47
      Quote: Sergey39
      Ah, a bathhouse on a ship: seawater, soap and steam from the engine room
      But they made real sailors out of you! wink
      1. +7
        28 September 2024 11: 26
        I don't know how it is now, but in the USSR there was no hot water on ships!!! The only exception was the sanitary checkpoints in the TARKR zones.
        And yes, mix water and steam in the right proportions and you have hot water, that's exactly how it was on the "Kirov" and "Ustinov", I personally tried it :)
        1. +4
          29 September 2024 12: 17
          On nuclear submarines - there was, but it was given on command, and so: an overboard shower at any time of the day...
    2. +11
      28 September 2024 09: 01
      It looks like they gave you a bathhouse of seawater as punishment. am The 76th Destroyer Brigade in Liepaja was based in the Military Harbor, and the OVR ships were in the Winter Harbor. Communications were available everywhere: fresh water, steam, electricity, and telephone. In the base, we washed ourselves only with fresh water, and used seawater in the sea, but fresh water (mainly condensate from the machines) was supplied to our washbasins for 10 minutes in the morning and evening when moving to the Baltic Sea. Closer to the 80s, the "thirties" practically did not go to sea in the Baltic, they were moored in Liepaja, Kronstadt, and Tallinn. We also had a chance to scoop up some fuel oil. When docking SRZ-29, the fuel oil was first pumped out of the tanks, then we climbed into the tanks, the height of the tank is more than a meter, you can't stand up to your full height. The fuel oil remained between the ribs of the tanks. First, we scooped up the fuel oil with canisters, then wiped it dry with rags. We didn't climb out until the tank was cleaned, and how could we climb out if we were covered in fuel oil, we'd splash everything around. We also had lunch in the tank, and they passed us food. If I'm not mistaken, we washed off the fuel oil with cold water, since it was impossible to wash off the fuel oil with hot water. The 56th destroyer, but I think it was similar on the XNUMXth. It looked something like this photo.
      1. 0
        28 September 2024 12: 07
        Quote: Waterways 672
        The fuel oil remained between the ribs of the tanks. First, the fuel oil was scooped out with candees, then wiped dry with rags.
        Why? They'll just pour fuel oil in there again later.
        1. +9
          28 September 2024 12: 31
          There are regulations for work when a ship is docked. Tanks are also inspected in the dock, repaired if necessary, welding work can be carried out. We docked twice, once the tanks were manually cleaned, the second time only the pumps pumped out fuel.
    3. +3
      29 September 2024 12: 15
      Yes, the habitability of the old ships was just a song! In my first year I had the chance to visit the already crappy cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzov" - an indelible impression!
  5. +11
    28 September 2024 07: 49
    As a child, I saw with my father, the captain, how the 30-ka was cut into needles. My father said: That's how people are - they live, live and die.
    1. +8
      28 September 2024 21: 49
      Quote: Igor Emelianenko
      As a child, I saw with my father, the captain, how the 30-ka was cut into needles. My father said: That's how people are - they live, live and die.

      My father was the commander of the 30-bis. He retired in 1972, and his ship was placed in the Inkerman warship cemetery in 1975. The sailors brought their former commander a porthole cut out of the commander's cabin with a storm cover ... and glass ... He then installed it at the dacha ... in a house built by us ourselves. He loved his ship. The fate of a sailor and the fate of a ship ...
  6. +9
    28 September 2024 08: 37
    During the war, 34 destroyers of this project were lost, and another 30 were not completed.

    A total of 53 units were laid down. Of these, 28 were completed according to the original design. 18 were completed according to the 7-U design. 6 were dismantled on the slipway.
    Participated in military operations:
    18 units of Project 7 EM, 11 units were lost
    18 units of Project 7U EM. 9 units were lost.
    1. +8
      28 September 2024 08: 56
      Causes of death.
      7 project:
      Navigational accidents - 2 cases
      Aerial bombs - 5 cases
      Mines - 4 cases

      Project 7U:
      Aerial bombs - 4 cases
      Mines - 5 cases
    2. 0
      28 September 2024 22: 25
      Quote: Ermak_Timofeich
      Of these, 28 were completed according to the original design. 18 were completed according to design 7-U.

      It seems like 29, but one was sunk immediately after launching when towed to Vladivostok for completion. But everything is written correctly, the author got the number wrong and exaggerated about the low strength.
      1. 0
        29 September 2024 12: 20
        Well, regarding low strength - the complaints are directed at Admiral Golovko, he was the one who complained about him in "Together with the Fleet"...
        1. +1
          30 September 2024 12: 17
          Quote: Flying_Dutchman
          Well, regarding low strength - the complaints are directed at Admiral Golovko, he was the one who complained about him in "Together with the Fleet"...

          Appendix No. 6 to Balakin's "Legendary Sevens" contains a document with "jambs" identified from the experience of operating the "sevens" in the Northern Fleet.
        2. 0
          30 September 2024 16: 07
          They riveted a sheet of about two meters and that was it. But there were problems with seaworthiness and range. The English didn't even believe that such a short range could exist. They considered ours cowards.
  7. 0
    28 September 2024 09: 32
    But it would have been possible to install 3 SM-5-1 on them and not have problems with air defense.
    1. +1
      28 September 2024 22: 32
      Quote: Kolin
      But it would have been possible to install 3 SM-5-1 on them and not have problems with air defense.

      The SM-5-1 actually appeared after the war. There was the B-34, but for a destroyer it was still too weak. Although, in all fairness, it was not destroyers that needed to be built in such numbers, but patrol ships, like the Project 50, for example. Cheap and cheerful, just what was needed for protection and escort.
  8. +8
    28 September 2024 09: 33
    "Smel'y" in the Neva

    On the Neva, after all.
    In the Neva - that would be if it sank. hi
  9. +2
    28 September 2024 12: 23
    One of the destroyer brigades of the Black Sea Fleet was even unofficially called “royal” – it was once commanded by the future Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy S. G. Gorshkov.

    The future Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy S. G. Gorshkov commanded a brigade of destroyers one year before the war, when the "30th bis" began to join the fleet, he was the Chief of Staff of the Black Sea Fleet.
  10. +7
    28 September 2024 14: 13
    In a stormy sea, the seaworthy "thirty bis" did the "Italians" like a sprinter does a pedestrian.

    Once again the author brings "publicism" to the masses. The seaworthiness of the destroyers of the project 30bis was "below the baseboard". In waves above 4 points, the destroyer could not use weapons, as well as develop a speed above 28 knots because the boiler fans were flooded. In addition, due to the lack of bilge keels, the ship was subject to intense rolling. In the end, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU had to deal with the issue of seaworthiness.
    1. +2
      28 September 2024 15: 22
      In the end, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee had to deal with the issue of seaworthiness.
      - if you don't know, this body dealt with absolutely all issues in our country bully
      1. +3
        28 September 2024 16: 39
        if you do not know

        I know. I even took the state exam on scientific communism.
    2. 0
      28 September 2024 18: 56
      The absence of bilge keels - are you serious? - and the fans that were flooded? - can't they be made higher?
    3. +5
      28 September 2024 20: 39
      Quote from Frettaskyrandi
      At sea levels above 4 points, the destroyer could not use weapons

      Really?:) Couldn't he have all-all weapons?:)))
      "At high speeds against the waves (starting from a sea state of 4 points), strong splashing of the bow group of machine guns was observed, which made it impossible to use the bow anti-aircraft machine gun No. 1, and also complicated the work of personnel on machines No. 2 and 3.
      When the ship was moving at sharp course angles against a 5-point oncoming wave and at a speed of over 18 knots, firing from the bow main caliber turret was impossible due to water getting into the gun barrels. In addition, the design of the artillery turret mounts "B-2-LM" and "92-k" (respectively 130- and 85-mm caliber) did not ensure their watertightness when splashed when the ship was moving against a wave at 4-5-point sea state, and this reduced the combat capabilities of the destroyer."
    4. +1
      29 September 2024 12: 21
      Below the baseboard or above the baseboard - it doesn't matter, the point is that it was higher than the sevens.
  11. 0
    28 September 2024 18: 54
    Apparently the teacher has nothing more to be proud of in life than his service at the 30th laughing
  12. +1
    29 September 2024 02: 53
    Regarding the prototype of the Project 7 Italian "Maestrale"... The destroyer "Scirrosso" sank in the Ionian Sea during a storm on March 23, 1942.
    "Sokrushitelny" lost its stern and propellers in the Barents Sea during a 12-point storm, and this is not the southern Ionian.
  13. +4
    29 September 2024 12: 36
    Why compare the incomparable?

    "The Americans even built fewer Arleigh Burke-class destroyers – 68 units"

    175 Fletchers look questioningly
  14. ada
    +1
    1 October 2024 00: 14
    Thank you for the article.
    I have only seen these ships in backwaters.