Soviet "Hipper" fights

60 592 95
Soviet "Hipper" fights
"Hawkins" is the founder of the class


Heavy cruisers as a class appeared during the First World War, but they did not make it to the war. The first was the British Hawkins, which received 190 mm guns as its main caliber, which were supposed to turn German raiders, which did not have guns with a caliber greater than 150 mm (and raiders with 150 mm guns did not have time to enter service), into an easy target for the new ship. And then there was the Washington Peace Conference of 1922, after which shipbuilders were placed within the framework of strict restrictions. Heavy cruisers of the Washington type were not supposed to have more than 10 thousand tons of displacement and guns with a caliber greater than 203 mm.




Project 26 cruiser "Kirov" - Soviet "light heavy"

The USSR did not sign the Washington Accords, so it did not skimp on arming its ships. However, the young Soviet engineers had no experience in building large ships. Therefore, on the one hand, the design of the first Soviet cruiser, the Kirov, was ordered from the Ansaldo company, and on the other, the 152 mm main caliber guns included in the Italian design were replaced with 180 mm ones. The result was a ship that stood approximately in the middle between light and heavy cruisers: light in armor and size, but with artillery... Much better than their "Washington classmates". But in the USSR in 1936 they had already adopted a program for the construction of a "large fleet", which meant that real heavy cruisers were needed...


Heavy cruiser of the Kronstadt type - the final version of the project carried 305-mm guns

Here it is worth making a lyrical digression: according to the Soviet classification, "heavy cruisers" were to be called Soviet analogues of battlecruisers: ships of the "Kronshtadt" class, carrying 305-mm main caliber guns. And it was decided to buy lighter ships from the Germans. Why from the Germans? The logic of the purchase was expressed in the aphorism coined by Stalin: "A ship bought from the enemy is equal to two: one more from us and one less from the enemy." Therefore, Soviet naval sailors watched the training firing of the "Admiral Hipper" with special interest...


"Admiral Hipper" is the lead ship of the series

The Third Reich, like the USSR, did not sign the Washington Agreements, so the German heavy cruisers of the Admiral Hipper type did not fit into the Washington restrictions. Their standard displacement was 14240 tons, full - 19800 tons. The length of these ships was 199,5 meters at the waterline, the width - 21,8 meters, the draft - 5,9-7,2 meters. The ship was well armored for its class: belt - 40-80 mm, beams - 80 mm, deck - 30 + 30 mm and 50 mm - slopes, turret front - 160 mm, barbettes - 80 mm, conning tower - 150 mm.

The cruisers' main caliber consisted of 4x2 203-mm SK C/34 guns with a barrel length of 60 calibers (maximum firing range - 33540 meters). Anti-aircraft artillery - 6x2 105-mm universal guns, 6x2 37-mm anti-aircraft machine guns, 10x1 20-mm "Oerlikons". In addition to artillery, the ships also carried 4 triple-tube torpedo tubes. However, the Germans decided to cheat with the artillery: initially it was announced that the main caliber would consist of 12 150-mm guns in four three-gun turrets. But the bases of the turrets were immediately designed for the possibility of installing 8x203-mm guns.


Laying of the heavy cruiser "Lützow"

The fifth and final cruiser of this project was laid down at the DeSchiMAG shipyard in Bremen on August 2, 1937. The ship was launched on July 1, 1939 and was named "Lützow" - in honor of the German partisan general of the Napoleonic Wars, Baron Adolf von Lützow. However, soon after the launch, the completion of the ship slowed down: the Reich's shipbuilding industry could not cope with the forced construction of the Kriegsmarine.


"How glad I am, how glad I am that I will go to Leningrad!" - "Lutzow" leaves for the USSR

And on August 23, 1939, the Non-Aggression Pact was signed between the USSR and Germany. The pact also included trade agreements, according to which the USSR supplied the Reich with raw materials and bought industrial products in return. Heavy cruisers fell under the definition of "industrial products", so the Soviet Union expressed a desire to purchase the Lützow. Hitler, in the conditions of the war with England, had no need for ships that were not very suitable for ocean raiding, so... After a little haggling, they agreed on a price of 104 million Reichsmarks, and the ship, designated "Project 53", was sent to Leningrad, to the Baltic Shipyard, for completion. A group of German engineers arrived with the ship, who were supposed to monitor the completion of the ship and provide assistance to their Soviet colleagues. At the time of sale, the ship was 54 percent complete.


"Lutzow" in the Baltic Shipyard

In our historiography, we often read that the Germans sabotaged the construction of the ship, not wanting to strengthen the Soviet Navy on the eve of the war. It is difficult to say whether this is true: according to the plan, the ship was not to be ready before 1942, and in Germany, shipbuilders also did not meet the construction deadlines - before the war, there was a forced growth of the Navy of both the Reich and the USSR, it is quite possible that suppliers simply could not cope with the colossal volume of orders, and the departure of wagons with equipment from Leningrad to the other end of Europe can be explained by the military chaos with logistics.

One way or another, but at the beginning of the war the cruiser had a readiness level of 70 (sometimes there are reports that it was 75) percent. Of the main caliber artillery, only the bow and stern lower turrets with four eight-inch guns were installed, from the anti-aircraft artillery 37-mm and 20-mm anti-aircraft guns arrived (the Germans supplied the ship with ammunition in full). But the USSR had no time for fat, and on August 15, 1941, the naval flag was raised over the ship, which was in a conditionally combat-ready state, and Captain 2nd Rank Alexander Vanifatyev took command of the ship. The new cruiser was named "Petropavlovsk". Since the cruiser was not in danger of going to sea, only the personnel necessary for firing and ensuring the operation of the artillery remained on board - gunners, electricians, diesel operators ...


Heavy cruiser "Tallinn" ("Petropavlovsk") - painting by artist V. M. Ivanov

The first salvos of the main caliber of the Petropavlovsk were fired on September 7 at the German troops approaching the city on the Neva. The cruiser's BC-2 did not stop shelling the enemy for 11 days. Even when on September 11, as a result of a shell explosion in the barrel bore, the left gun of turret A was disabled (we also usually attribute this to pre-war German sabotage, but something similar happened on the battleship Marat...), the ship continued firing from its remaining guns. Meanwhile, the enemy was approaching the city.

By September 17, there were only 3 kilometers between the cruiser and the enemy batteries on the opposite shore of the Gulf of Finland. From September 7 to 17, Petropavlovsk fired 676 shells, killing 10 and wounding 30 crew members on board. During the duel with the German batteries, the ship received 53 hits, including 20 of 210 mm caliber: more than enough for a fully combat-ready cruiser with a full crew. The only generator was disabled, the ship ceased fire, and the Red Navy sailors began fighting the fires.


"Petropavlovsk" on fire

"Petropavlovsk" was perishing: with a reduced crew, the fight for survivability was difficult. Due to the hole received, the cruiser listed to the left side (only the embankment wall saved it from capsizing) and sat on the ground. Anti-aircraft guns were removed from the cruiser and installed on ships of the Ladoga military flotilla. The crew was reorganized: most of them went to the marines (there is information that 44 sailors from "Petropavlovsk" died during the Peterhof landing) and to the ships of the Ladoga flotilla, but the specialists of BC-5 who remained on board carried out repairs to the ship, eliminating the combat damage. After an inspection of the damage received, it turned out that it was possible to raise the ship and put into operation the main caliber artillery, which was not superfluous in besieged Leningrad.


The absence of guns in the upper turret is clearly visible...

The problem was that the enemy was only 4 kilometers away, and all work had to be done at night, and in order to maintain secrecy, it was necessary to use only the smallest rescue ships with weak water-draining equipment. In general, it was not possible to raise the cruiser before the ice formed, and the operation was postponed until spring. But the rest of the crew was on board, and they were not idle. Water was pumped out sequentially from each compartment, after which it was sealed. At first, low-power portable pumps were used, but after the aft engine room was drained, it was possible to start up power plant No. 1. Then the stationary pumps started working, and the ship gradually began to float. Drainage was carried out at night, and during the day, water was again collected in some compartments - so that it would not be noticeable that the ship was alive (stationary pumps could work in a completely flooded room). During the hungry winter of the siege of 1941-42, two more diesel generators were put into operation...


Heinz-Ulrich Rudel. He may have been responsible for not only the Marat, but also the Petropavlovsk. However, neither ship was destroyed...

The Germans considered the Petropavlovsk destroyed, but just in case, on April 4, 1942, a lone "Laptezhnik" (sometimes written that it was piloted by Heinz-Ulrich Rudel) appeared over the ship lying on the ground and dropped a 200-kg bomb. It pierced the deck and exploded inside the ship, fortunately, there were no casualties in the explosion... All work was completed by September 10, 1942. At night, the ship made a trial full surfacing and was laid down on the ground again.

On the night of September 16-17, under the noses of the entrenched German infantry, the Petropavlovsk was raised and towed to the wall of the Baltic Shipyard. It was unrealistic to take the cruiser to the dock along the completely open sea channel, so the ship was repaired using the "Port Arthur method": by welding a caisson measuring 12,5 by 15 by 8 meters. The structure was brought to the holes in turn and sealed. Meanwhile, artillery and electrical equipment were being restored in the rooms and on the deck.

Repairs in the conditions of the besieged city proceeded slowly, but in January 1944 the three remaining eight-inch guns of the cruiser opened fire again: the ship entered the same 2nd artillery group as the battleship Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya, the cruisers Kirov and Maksim Gorky (there is information that the ship was included in the Leningrad defense system on December 30, 1942, but I have not found confirmation of this). On January 15, Petropavlovsk fired 250 203-mm shells at the enemy, supporting the troops participating in the Krasnoselsk-Ropsha offensive operation. And there was more! The cruiser fired at German positions on Voronya Gora, shelled communications, observation and command posts. In total, the ship carried out 31 shellings, firing 1036 shells: the ship was not looked after - the restoration of the heavy cruiser was put to rest.


The main caliber shell of the Petropavlovsk is 122 kg, no joke!

Meanwhile, the actions of the Petropavlovsk's eight-inch guns were quite effective. Coastal observation groups counted three destroyed guns, 29 cars, 68 carts and 300 killed soldiers and officers. On January 24, 1944, the ship fired its last shots - the combat life of the former Lutzow was over. On September 1, 1944, Petropavlovsk became Tallinn. At first, the idea of ​​finishing the ship was in the air: its unfinished sister ship Seydlitz fell into the hands of Soviet shipbuilders, so there should not be any problems with the equipment. The ship was towed to the dock, several projects for completion were drawn up and considered. But...


Non-self-propelled training vessel "Dnepr"

The cost of completion was too high for the post-war USSR — 191 million rubles. At first, it was decided to complete the ship as a training cruiser, but there was not enough money for that either. On January 12, 1949, Tallinn was reclassified as a light cruiser. Then it managed to be a non-self-propelled training ship Dnepr, a floating workshop for Sverdlov-class cruisers, and a floating barracks PKZ-112, and on April 4, 1958, it was excluded from the fleet lists and scrapped.

How should we evaluate the USSR's purchase of a German heavy cruiser? Despite the ship's not-so-happy fate, in my opinion, it was a very successful decision. Even if we do not take into account the benefit of having its main caliber artillery in besieged Leningrad (let's not forget the anti-aircraft guns on the ships of the Ladoga military flotilla!), at least it was not included in the Kriegsmarine. The same Admiral Hipper did us a lot of harm during Operation Wunderland. True, it is not a fact that Lützow would have been completed: Seydlitz was never brought to fruition. Nevertheless, during the completion of the ship and the operation of complex German equipment, Soviet shipbuilding engineers acquired valuable experience, and a certain amount of equipment was delivered to shipyards. The logic of the "best friend of Soviet athletes": "The enemy has one less ship, we have one more ship" worked!
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 19
    26 February 2025 04: 06
    Interesting!
    Thanks to the author for the article! hi
    1. +2
      6 March 2025 11: 28
      Quote: Proton
      Interesting! Thanks to the author for the article! hi

      Quote: Proton
      The pact also included trade agreements, under which the USSR supplied the Reich with raw materials and bought industrial products in return. Heavy cruisers under the definition of "industrial

      A bit wrong.
      Stalin: - "The first step towards concluding a pact could be trade agreements." Under these agreements, Germany allocated a huge loan. With this money, the USSR purchased the products of highly skilled German workers, and sold to the Germans the products of unskilled workers in the USSR - down, feathers, timber, unenriched manganese ore, etc.
      Otherwise the article is great. Thanks to the author.
  2. +1
    26 February 2025 04: 08
    And on August 23, 1939, the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Germany was signed. In addition to the pact, there were trade agreements, according to which the USSR supplied the Reich with raw materials and in return bought industrial products.
    I didn't buy it, I took it on credit.
    However, neither ship could be destroyed...

    If a ship does not return to service after being damaged, it is destroyed. Anything can be made from the remains of a ship, but if it is not capable of functioning as a ship, it has ceased to exist.
    1. + 12
      26 February 2025 06: 22
      So, even before receiving damage, the ship was only conditionally in service and could not act as a ship.
      1. -7
        26 February 2025 06: 29
        Quote from: dmiitriy
        was only conditionally in service and could not act as a ship.

        It was unfinished. The power plant was working, the hull was intact, after the damage it became impossible to complete the construction.
        1. + 12
          26 February 2025 08: 18
          Completion was possible, it just turned out to be too expensive. Rudel's bomb missed the ship's vital components.
          1. +1
            26 February 2025 19: 08
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            Rudel's omb did not hit the ship's vital components.

            Speaking of the bomb... Where can I read about this fact?
          2. +2
            27 February 2025 03: 24
            Quote: Flying_Dutchman
            Rudel's bomb did not hit the ship's vital components.

            Rudel wrote nothing about Lutzow's attack.
        2. +1
          26 February 2025 19: 05
          Quote: Puncher
          The power plant was working

          The main power plant on the Tallinn was not working. The main equipment (boilers and GTZA) was installed, but not connected.
    2. + 19
      26 February 2025 08: 16
      At that time, the entire Baltic Fleet was operating in floating battery mode, so there was not much difference between the immobile Marat and the mobile Kirov...
      1. 0
        27 February 2025 03: 23
        Quote: Flying_Dutchman
        At that time, the entire Baltic Fleet was operating in floating battery mode, so there was not much difference between the immobile Marat and the mobile Kirov...

        Ok. You know what a ship is, right? The main thing for a ship is the ability to move independently (important!) on the water surface. No?
    3. AMG
      0
      26 February 2025 09: 30
      He supplied raw materials, but took the products on credit? How is that? Raw materials for free?
    4. +3
      26 February 2025 20: 42
      Quote: Puncher
      but if it is not capable of acting as a ship, then it has ceased to exist.

      Even before the fatal damage, it was a "ship" in a very relative sense. But it fought to the best of its ability and capabilities. request
    5. +5
      27 February 2025 10: 42
      Quote: Puncher
      If a ship does not return to service after being damaged, it means it has been destroyed.

      But for this purpose our Navy had the "floating battery" class.
      Can shoot, but can't move? Will be a floating battery - "also a ship". smile
      1. +1
        27 February 2025 11: 09
        Quote: Alexey RA
        That's why our Navy had the "floating battery" class.
        Can shoot, but can't move? Will be a floating battery - "also a ship".

        Yeah, a barge is also a ship? And a landing stage?
        1. +3
          27 February 2025 11: 48
          Quote: Puncher
          Yeah, so a barge is also a ship?

          A barge with guns is exactly like a ship. This is a classic non-self-propelled floating battery, the ancestor of which was the "mortar raft".
          Even our experimental section of the LK with guns is a ship. smile
  3. + 13
    26 February 2025 04: 38
    In addition to direct damage to the enemy, it is necessary to take into account the resources that the enemy spent to destroy the ship. And in totality, "Petropavlovsk" showed an excellent result! And it is not about the origin, but about a sober assessment and competent use.
    The Black Sea Fleet command simply blew it in this regard...
  4. + 15
    26 February 2025 04: 56
    <<The same "Admiral Hipper" did us a lot of harm during Operation Wonderland.>>

    The Admiral Scheer took part in Operation Wonderland.
    Not "Hipper"!
    1. +6
      26 February 2025 08: 19
      Sorry, I was wrong, definitely "Scheer"...
  5. +3
    26 February 2025 06: 05
    The logic of the "best friend of Soviet athletes"


    Wow! Can't we do without this?
    All about Krylov:
    "The donkey answers her:
    “Why should I be shy? and I kicked him:
    Let donkey hooves know! ”

    No matter how hard our dear writer tries, the donkey's hoof is still visible.
  6. +3
    26 February 2025 06: 08
    The Third Reich, like the USSR, did not sign the Washington Agreements, so the German heavy cruisers of the Admiral Hipper type did not fit into the Washington restrictions.
    Before the Third Reich, the German fleet was limited by the Versailles Treaty, and after 1935, by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. The Admiral Hipper is a common product of the naval powers' tonnage deception, like all other German heavy ships.
    1. +1
      26 February 2025 19: 10
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      "Admiral Hipper" is a typical product of deception of the naval powers regarding tonnage, like all other German heavy ships.

      There is a very interesting question there, if you compare the approved project and what happened after it was actually put into operation: 3500 tons are accumulating very easily.
  7. +1
    26 February 2025 06: 10
    Quote: Puncher
    And on August 23, 1939, the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Germany was signed. In addition to the pact, there were trade agreements, according to which the USSR supplied the Reich with raw materials and in return bought industrial products.
    I didn't buy it, I took it on credit.
    However, neither ship could be destroyed...

    If a ship does not return to service after being damaged, it is destroyed. Anything can be made from the remains of a ship, but if it is not capable of functioning as a ship, it has ceased to exist.

    Both Marat and Petropavlovsk would have sunk in the deep, that's for sure. Another thing is that Marat turned out to be much stronger than Arizona, which in a similar situation was simply gutted by an explosion, losing 90% of the crew on board. Sorry for the OFF.
    1. +4
      26 February 2025 06: 41
      Marat almost used up the main battery ammunition. Arizona was full, plus the linear-elevated turret scheme, and the shells were huge
    2. + 11
      26 February 2025 09: 07
      A ship lost as a combat unit is considered destroyed; the Marat was not lost; all other arguments are from the devil (after all, the battleship needs to be added to Rudel’s list!).
  8. +5
    26 February 2025 06: 21
    Why can't I see this paragraph in the article? But it's on the "splash"
    1. +7
      26 February 2025 06: 58
      This is a "preview" and its content is not always the same as the text of the article.
      1. +4
        26 February 2025 07: 01
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        This is a "preview" and its content is not always the same as the text of the article.

        I would like to read about these shootings.
        1. 0
          26 February 2025 07: 12
          Here, Ivan, I can't help in any way. You know yourself - it's not my topic.
  9. +2
    26 February 2025 06: 43
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Marat almost used up the GK ammunition. Arizona was full

    However, the remaining ammunition was enough to tear off the nose. And, excuse me, where did the firewood come from?
    1. +4
      26 February 2025 07: 00
      Quote: Grossvater
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Marat almost used up the GK ammunition. Arizona was full

      However, the remaining ammunition was enough to tear off the nose. And, excuse me, where did the firewood come from?

      1200 shells constituted a full ammo pack. 100 per barrel. Shot over 950. Even if they loaded more, it was still an incomplete ammo pack. And on Arizona, the second magazine probably detonated too.
    2. +3
      26 February 2025 19: 16
      Quote: Grossvater
      And, excuse me, where did you get the firewood?

      According to Vasiliev, 9 shells were fired from September 18 to 1042.
      But there is no data on whether the BC was loaded after the transition to Kronstadt.
  10. +1
    26 February 2025 07: 38
    During the completion of the ship and the operation of complex German equipment, Soviet shipbuilding engineers gained valuable experience

    I would like to know what German experience, besides the submarine, was used in domestic projects?
    1. +5
      26 February 2025 08: 23
      Quite a lot, the hulls of the same destroyers of project 30 bis were designed based on familiarity with German experience.
  11. +5
    26 February 2025 07: 47
    Hans-Ulrich Rudel could not attack the Petropavlovsk on April 4, 1942, because in March 1942 he was appointed squadron commander in the reserve air group StG2, which was based in Graz, and he stayed there all spring.
    1. +3
      26 February 2025 08: 25
      I wrote that he is credited with the "Petropavlovsk", there is no exact data, but someone got into the ship, there are claims that Rudel...
  12. +4
    26 February 2025 08: 32
    I saw the photo showing an officer examining a shell not as a shell from Petropavlovsk, but as an inspection of an unexploded shell from a 210mm German artillery shell, only the negative was turned over. hi
    1. +2
      26 February 2025 09: 01
      That's right. It's a German shell.
    2. +5
      26 February 2025 13: 44
      Here's another photo. Inspection of a 210 mm unexploded shell near the side of the cruiser Petropavlovsk
      1. +2
        26 February 2025 19: 08
        Quote: denplot
        Here's another photo. Inspection of a 210 mm unexploded shell near the side of the cruiser Petropavlovsk

        Thank you Denis. This is the photo I saw at the time. With two officers.
  13. +2
    26 February 2025 08: 56
    The cruiser "Kirov" was a light cruiser according to the Soviet classification. But thanks to the 180mm it became one of the most powerful light cruisers.
    In essence, it repeated the fate of the battleship Marat, after serious damage it became a floating battery.
    1. +5
      26 February 2025 09: 04
      Like all other BF ships...
      1. -1
        26 February 2025 10: 28
        Flying_Dutchman (Flying_Dutchman), respected sir, I think, perhaps I am wrong a million times, in your sentence "Like all the other ships of the Baltic Fleet..." after the word "other" you need to insert a couple of words: "large surface ships".
        In 1942, the first-line submarines of the Baltic Fleet, breaking through from the Gulf of Finland, sank 11 ships with torpedoes. The second-line submarines sank 6 ships with torpedoes, 3 ships with artillery, 4 transports were blown up by mines, and 1 submarine sank after hitting a mine. The third-line submarines sank 10 ships with torpedoes. The Baltic Fleet surface ships, which ensured the breakthrough of submarines from the Gulf of Finland, nevertheless carried out work that was not quite similar to the work of floating batteries.
        1. UAT
          +3
          26 February 2025 12: 01
          Respected Tests, the sturgeon of the Baltic submarine results you described should be greatly reduced. The most effective in terms of the number of ships sunk was I.V. Travkin. "Operating on enemy communications in the Baltic Sea, I.V. Travkin sank 13 enemy ships." I can't give a link now, but I read an article on the pages of VO where the author compared the effectiveness of submariners based on information from the opposing sides. So about Travkin, it just stuck in my memory - in fact, he didn't sink anything.
          1. +1
            26 February 2025 19: 55
            well yes, reading the works of A.E. Taras "Submarine in the Second World War" on page 200 there is... in 1941-1945, 19 submarine commanders received the title of USSR... from this list, 6 commanders did not sink a single ship... by the way, Travkin had 1 (one Karl) sunk to his credit...
            P.S.. and you shouldn't belittle their actions from the 21st century because technically then (as well as today) the Red Army submarine fleet was inferior to the Kriegsmarine... and the guys did what they could...
            1. +1
              26 February 2025 20: 04
              Quote: UAT
              Dear Testov, the sturgeon results of the Baltic submarines that you described should be greatly reduced.

              In general, there is (also on the Internet) a book by A.V. Platonov "Encyclopedia of Soviet Submarines, 1941-45", which describes the actions and results of all submarines of the USSR Navy during the Great Patriotic War.
          2. +3
            26 February 2025 20: 03
            UAT (Alexey), respected sir, cut it down. Unfortunately, I am not a historian.
            The numbers about the victories of our submariners in 1942 are floating around, according to different historians, from 22 to 47 ships (some do not count Swedish ships and fishing schooners). According to different sources, 2-3 ships were lost to artillery. From 2 to 4 ships had mines (and all of them did not sink, all of them, it seems, reached the ports), and many attribute the submarines to a German or Finnish mine.
            The main idea of ​​my comment, as a response to the respected author, was: not all ships of the Baltic Fleet were floating batteries.
          3. +5
            27 February 2025 10: 50
            Quote: UAT
            The most effective in terms of the number of ships sunk was I.V. Travkin. "Operating on enemy communications in the Baltic Sea, I.V. Travkin sank 13 enemy ships." I can't give you a link now, but I read an article on the pages of VO where the author compared the effectiveness of submariners based on information from the opposing sides. This is what just stuck in my memory about Travkin - in fact, he didn't sink anything.

            The work of the KBF submarine was analyzed by Mr. Miroslav Morozov. Here is what he wrote about Travkin:
            ...his combat score of 16 ships was reduced by the Soviet official history to 8, of which one victory was confirmed.

            However, he added:
            ...there are no people with purely positive or purely negative qualities.
            By the way, the ship damaged by it - the troop TR "Aldebaran" - cost many other successes. In my opinion, this is almost the only ship damaged by our submarines in the Baltic, which was carrying a military unit - units of the 7th Guards Division, transferred from Danzig to Finland in the Ukhta direction. The torpedoing of this ship, along with the active actions of other submarines, played a role in developing a complex route for transporting the 3rd Guards Division from Oslo to Leningrad in August 42 and the refusal to transfer the 69th Division by sea across the Baltic in late October - early November 1942.
            1. UAT
              +2
              27 February 2025 11: 32
              Respected Alexey RA, thank you for your comment. It turns out that the estimate of the scale of excess of the sturgeon size is 8 times. Although I completely agree with the respected Tests:
              "The main idea of ​​my comment, as a response to the respected author, was: not all ships of the Baltic Fleet were floating batteries."
      2. The comment was deleted.
  14. -2
    26 February 2025 11: 54
    How to evaluate the USSR's purchase of a German heavy cruiser? Despite the ship's not-so-happy fate, in my opinion, it was a very successful decision.

    A very unfortunate decision. 104 million Reichsmarks for one 203 mm twin-gun turret and several thousand tons of scrap metal. This was an unsuccessful ship that cost more than half the money for the newest battleship (Tirpitz) and had a number of major defects, from the power plant to the fire control system. This money could have been used to buy a lot of other valuable weapons (for example, 20 mm and 37 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, minesweepers, torpedo boats) or equipment.
    1. Fat
      +7
      26 February 2025 13: 46
      Quote: Kostadinov
      This money could have been used to purchase many other valuable weapons (for example, 20 mm and 37 mm anti-aircraft guns, minesweepers, torpedo boats) or equipment.

      Or build about 1000 T34 tanks. They cost more than 200 thousand Soviet rubles before the war.
      Such reasoning makes no sense.
      1. +1
        26 February 2025 20: 03
        well yes...well yes it would have been possible...only we couldn't build anything of our own (and I remind you that Kirov is Italy) before 1939...because we were creating the shipbuilding industry practically from scratch...and here, from the point of view of land forces (and in fact Russia has never been a naval one) a normal project...as they say...at the level of world analogues...and WHAT to build a fleet or an armada of T-34s...to be honest, both Ye and others at the beginning (and not only) of WWII were purely...suckers...the Germans beat both of them...and you can't compare HOW (here our efforts of the SVO are like playing in a sandbox)...alas, by 1943 we managed to put forward our Guderians, but our Doenitz...ha...ha (three times)
        1. Fat
          +3
          26 February 2025 21: 57
          I can only regret that I was unable to convey the main idea to the mass of readers.
          Yes, the USSR lost more than 200 million rubles in gold, but acquired a solid combat unit in the navy. At the same time, Germany lost resources for 4-6 tank divisions. Which is what the author explains quite directly: plus one unit of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet bought from the Teutons is equal to minus one equivalent unit of the Kriegsmarine.
          There is no need to "beat around the bush" here...
          1. +1
            26 February 2025 22: 44
            Quote: Thick
            At the same time, Germany lost resources for 4-6 tank divisions.

            Explain the arithmetic, if it's not too much trouble...
            1. Fat
              +1
              27 February 2025 10: 31
              Rough weight estimate. The combat weight of the medium tank Pz.Kpfw. III was from 15,4 (Ausf. A) to 21,5 (Ausf. J) tons. The standard displacement of the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper was 14 tons. In 247, a three-battalion Wehrmacht tank division had 1941 tanks, a two-battalion division had 200...
    2. +4
      26 February 2025 19: 26
      Quote: Kostadinov
      A very unfortunate decision. 104 million Reichsmarks for one 203 mm twin-gun turret and several thousand tons of scrap metal.

      But haven’t you thought that independent R&D on all the “topics” obtained together with the cruiser would have cost significantly more in terms of both money and time?

      Quote: Kostadinov
      and ending with the control system.

      What didn’t suit you about SUAO?
      Our artillerymen really liked it.
  15. 0
    26 February 2025 14: 46
    Still, in such weight, as it were, average data. The Germans, who before the First World War were famous for the exceptionally rational use of displacement, after 17 years, somehow became too wasteful. In almost 20 thousand tons - eight 8 dm and 80 mm belt, on the exhaust turned out to be quite ordinary cruisers.
    1. +1
      26 February 2025 19: 24
      The most important thing is that it turned out to be very expensive. And of course, the KMU is not in the Red Army.
      1. +2
        26 February 2025 20: 07
        Quote: Grossvater
        The most important thing is that it turned out to be very expensive. And of course, the KMU is not in the Red Army.

        German GPUs are the most mysterious thing in the Kriegsmarine. When you read German documents, it seems that the Germans themselves did not fully understand what and how they worked. :)
    2. +1
      27 February 2025 08: 36
      They built raiders and put a large supply of fuel in them which took up space. I think so.
      1. 0
        27 February 2025 17: 43
        Quote: ss29
        They were building raiders

        They did not build raiders... The 2nd generation of German ships was built against the French.
        What kind of "Hipper" is a raider with a combat radius of 2700 miles?
        1. +1
          27 February 2025 19: 25
          On economy 6800 miles range. Overall you are right, a very average cruiser, although Eugen turned out to be a tough nut to crack.
          1. +1
            27 February 2025 20: 20
            Quote: ss29
            Overall, you are right, it is a very average cruiser, although Eugen turned out to be a tough nut to crack.

            Just lucky... :)
            Nothing arrived in the Danish Strait, I reached "Spichern" on the sly, as they say, getting closer to the "dead" reserve, I made it to Brest on "lame" machines...
  16. +4
    26 February 2025 16: 00
    Photo of "Laying of the heavy cruiser Lutzow" - more likely preparations for launching. Flags are adorned, a pavilion for high-ranking guests is visible near the bow of the ship...
  17. -2
    26 February 2025 16: 20
    Quote: Grossvater
    Both Marat and Petropavlovsk would have been sunk in the depths, that's without a doubt.

    And I have big doubts. At depth, this means outside the port, moving at sea. How many battleships and cruisers outside the port, in the open sea, were sunk by German aviation on the Eastern Front? I count, I throw, but except for one old cruiser (Chervona Ukraina), I can’t remember another one during the entire war.
    And it cannot be said that Soviet battleships and cruisers were only in ports. They were used very intensively, including as troop transports, during the period when German aviation dominated the air.
    1. 0
      26 February 2025 16: 59
      And how many enemy ships did the Luftwaffe sink in the open sea outside the Eastern Front? The USSR had three ships that belonged to the battleship class. Of these, the Marat received such damage that if it had been in the open sea, it would have definitely sunk, since it took on more than 10 thousand tons of water. Of the cruisers, the Komintern and Molotov also suffered very heavy damage in the Black Sea.
      1. +4
        26 February 2025 19: 42
        Quote: Grencer81
        And how many enemy ships did the Luftwaffe sink in the open sea outside the Eastern Front?

        If you look at it in the context of "completely drowned-drowned" (without taking into account "finish it off so it doesn't suffer"), then the British have four cruisers and about three dozen destroyers...
    2. +3
      27 February 2025 10: 56
      Quote: Kostadinov
      How many battleships and cruisers outside the port, in the open sea, were sunk by German aviation on the Eastern Front? I count, I think, but except for one old cruiser (Chervona Ukraina), I cannot remember another one during the entire war.

      "Chervona Ukraina" was just sunk at the base - in Sevastopol, next to the pier.

      The commander stood in one place for too long, and the base, due to the unfortunate wind direction, was unable to cover the ship with smoke during the raids.
  18. Eug
    +2
    26 February 2025 16: 36
    I wonder why this type of cruisers were not suitable for raiding? Too powerful? And also - here's an amateurish question - why didn't anyone build ships with "mixed" artillery - for example, instead of 12x152 - 6x152 and 4x203 in elevated turrets? I understand that the answer is somewhere, as they say, "on the surface", but I can't find it.
    1. +2
      26 February 2025 17: 39
      Quote: Eug
      Why didn't anyone build ships with "mixed" artillery - for example, instead of 12x152 - 6x152 and 4x203 in elevated towers?

      They write everywhere that the refusal of different-caliber artillery introduced dissonance into sighting and fire control. Probably, at a long distance it is more difficult to understand which shell hit where - 152 or 203, plus the difference in shell weight, etc. Plus different loading times. That is, it is still easier to control the fire of the same type of guns.
      Personally, it seems to me that this is also connected with the usual unification - why load a ship with different types of shells for one purpose? And the effectiveness of 152 is significantly less than 203.
      Remember the development of battleships in the early 20th century, when one ship was equipped with 305, 254, 203, 190 and 152 mm. Then they simply realized that they did not help, but interfered with each other and decided - screw it, it is better to have one large caliber for large ships and one medium for small ones)
      The first dreadnoughts even managed to install a 76 mm anti-mine caliber.
      In general, simple military logic.
      1. +3
        27 February 2025 11: 13
        Quote: Trapper7
        Remember the development of battleships in the early 20th century, when one ship was equipped with 305, 254, 203, 190 and 152 mm. Then they simply realized that they did not help, but interfered with each other and decided - screw it, it is better to have one large caliber for large ships and one medium for small ones)

        If I remember correctly, in the classic story of the emergence of the "Dreadnought" it was that the negative results of the joint firing of 305-mm and 234-mm guns became the final nail in the coffin of the "bicaliber" EBM line.
        On the other side of the ocean, they also considered a "bicaliber" large EBM with 305-mm and 254-mm guns (to save displacement) - and came to the same conclusion:
        There remained, however, an unclear question regarding the possibility of saving weight by installing 254 mm artillery. However, in October 1904, W. L. Rogers of the Naval War College presented an extensive memorandum on this very aspect of the problem, pointing out that at long ranges the difference in ballistics for two even such similar calibers (254 mm and 305 mm) becomes completely unacceptable. At the same time, the splashes from the fall of their shells are very similar, which would make fire control extremely difficult. Rogers did not agree that an "all-big-gun ship" would require such a large increase in displacement compared to the latest series of battleships. He argued that a ship with ten 305 mm guns would require a tonnage of 18300 tons, with twelve guns - 21100 tons.
        However, the implementation of all these plans was hampered by the limit recently established by Congress - no more than 16000 tons for new battleships.
        © Battleships of the United States of America. Part I. Battleships of the "South Carolina", "Delaware", "Florida" and "Wyoming" classes.
    2. +3
      26 February 2025 19: 45
      Quote: Eug
      I wonder why this type of cruisers were not suitable for raiding? Too powerful?

      The sailing range was not sufficient.

      Quote: Eug
      And also - here's an amateur question - why didn't anyone build ships with "mixed" artillery - for example, instead of 12x152 - 6x152 and 4x203 in elevated turrets?

      It will be very difficult to control the fire.
  19. +2
    26 February 2025 18: 29
    And how many enemy ships did the Luftwaffe sink in the open sea outside the Eastern Front?

    The speech was about battleships and cruisers, as large armored ships, and not about any ships. And outside the Eastern Front there were very few of them. So, for example, I can’t think of any British or American battleships sunk at sea by German aviation. There are the sinkings of the battleship of the allied Italy and I think that’s all.
    The USSR had three ships that belonged to the battleship class. Of these, the Marat received such damage that if it had been in the open sea, it would have definitely sunk, since it took on more than 10 thousand tons of water.

    If it were in the open sea it would not be a stationary target and might not have received such damage. One Soviet battleship often struck in the open sea, supplied Sevastopol as a transport and for more than a year the Luftwaffe was unable to sink it.
    Of the cruisers, the Komintern and Molotov also suffered very heavy damage in the Black Sea.

    There were 7 or 8 cruisers that went to the open sea. They did this during the most dangerous period until the end of 1942. They were engaged in evacuation and supply to the zone of complete Luftwaffe domination and only one of the old cruisers was sunk at sea. The fact that 2 cruisers survived heavy damage in the open sea does not support your theory.
  20. +4
    26 February 2025 19: 02
    Heavy cruisers as a class appeared during the First World War, but did not make it to the war.

    As a class, the cruisers appeared as a result of the 1st London Treaty, which divided cruisers into "class A" with artillery over 155 mm and "class B" - less than 155 mm. Who came up with the euphemism "heavy" and "light", you need to look for.

    The first was the British Hawkins, which received 190 mm guns as its main caliber, which were supposed to turn the German raiders, which did not have guns with a caliber greater than 150 mm (and the raiders with 150 mm guns did not have time to enter service), into an easy target for the new ship.

    The British assumed that the new German cruisers would have 170mm guns, which would allow them to easily counter the "ordinary" merchant cruisers with 4-6" caliber artillery.

    And then there was the Washington Peace Conference of 1922, after which shipbuilders were placed within the framework of strict restrictions. Heavy cruisers of the Washington type were not to have more than 10 thousand tons of displacement and guns with a caliber greater than 203 mm.

    You have twisted the terms of the Washington Treaty quite a bit.
    In short: a battleship is a ship with a standard displacement of more than 10000 but less than 35000 tons and a main caliber of more than 8", but less than 16". But battleships could not be built for 10 years.
    For this reason, everyone rushed to the maximum permitted ships - the result was cruiser-class ships with a displacement of 10000 tons and with 8" main guns.

    The USSR did not sign the Washington Accords, so it did not skimp on arming its ships.
    The situation was somewhat different: the only modern serial artillery system of the "cruiser" caliber was the 180-mm B-1-P

    Therefore, on the one hand, the design of the first Soviet cruiser Kirov was ordered from the Ansaldo company, and on the other hand, the 152-mm main caliber guns included in the Italian design were replaced with 180-mm ones.
    Why fantasize like that? The history of the development of the Kirov-class cruisers project has been described many times...

    but with artillery... Much better than our "Washington classmates".

    What's better, if it's not a secret?

    And they decided to buy lighter ships from the Germans. Why from the Germans?

    "Lighter ships" were also at the design stage, for example, the Project 82 cruisers.

    Why the Germans?

    Everything is much simpler than the aphorisms of Comrade Stalin: the Germans simply agreed to sell them.
    Our guys wanted to buy up all the heavy unfinished construction, but the "artist" only gave the go-ahead for "Lutzow".

    The Third Reich, like the USSR, did not sign the Washington Agreements, so the German heavy cruisers of the Admiral Hipper type did not fit into the Washington restrictions.

    Clause d) of the Anglo-German Agreement of 35 stipulated that all ships under construction must comply with the standards of current international agreements.
    The Anglo-German agreement of 37 was generally a combination of the Washington and both London naval agreements...

    Their standard displacement was 14240 tons.

    It would be good to find the Hipper construction journal and see what the final overload was, because the approved design is very different from what was actually built.

    However, the Germans decided to cheat with the artillery: initially it was announced that the main caliber would consist of 12 150-mm guns in four three-gun turrets. But the turret bases were immediately designed to accommodate 8x203-mm guns.

    Where do you get these stories from?
    Initially, all five ships were supposed to carry 4x2-8", the first three were laid down. But since the laying of cruisers K and L coincided with the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement, which, following the 2nd London, prohibited the construction of battlecruisers until January 1, 43, the "artist" as a "gesture of goodwill" announced that the new cruisers would be armed with 12 150-mm guns... but in September 37, an order was given to build cruisers with 8" main guns, but 150-mm turret mounts continued to be developed. In December 38, the Germans officially notified the British that the cruisers would be completed as heavy...

    the ship, designated "Project 53"

    In fact, there are exactly two options in the documents - "Cruiser L" and "Project 83"

    One way or another, at the start of the war the cruiser had a readiness level of 70 (sometimes there is information that it was 75) percent.

    According to various documents, the overall technical readiness of the cruiser on 30.06.41 was estimated at 51 (report of the Glushchenko commission), 64% (Titushkin) or 70% (Platonov)... There is room for guesswork.

    In total, the ship carried out 31 shellings, firing 1036 shells: the ship was not looked after - the restoration of the heavy cruiser was put to rest.

    Shouldn't the ship be restored just because the main battery gun barrels were shot out?
    "Red Caucasus" fought the whole war like this...

    At first, the idea of ​​finishing the ship was in the air: the Soviet shipbuilders had gotten their hands on its unfinished sister ship, Seydlitz, so there shouldn’t have been any problems with the equipment.
    Initially, there was an idea to complete both ships: "Lützow" and "Seydlitz", then one of them (and they were leaning towards "Seydlitz")... But the shipbuilders said that "they couldn't", and that's where the story ended.
    1. +2
      27 February 2025 11: 35
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      You have to look for who came up with the euphemism "heavy" and "light".

      Aunt Vika slanders that the "Light Cruiser" (CL) class existed in the US Navy classification even before the Washington Treaty - in 1920, the high-speed "Scout Cruisers" were reclassified into it. In 1921, all the surviving old cruisers, except for the "St. Louises", were added to this class.
      It is funny that the future Washington 8" CRTs of the US Navy, up to and including the Minneapolis, were initially classified as "light cruisers" / CL, and only after the London Treaty were they reclassified as "heavy cruisers" / CA.
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      Everything is much simpler than the aphorisms of Comrade Stalin: the Germans simply agreed to sell them.

      Yeah... the same US after the SFV generally introduced a moral embargo against the USSR, which put an end to naval cooperation. Just when ours were negotiating on the EM and LK.
      Because the embargo was voluntary, like a collective farm: if you want to, you comply, if you don't, you don't... and you miss out on the government order in the most favorable years and the money. I remember Pomnits, Seversky, even for a formally legal deal with the sale of fighters to Japan through a third country, was thrown out of his own company and the company was renamed "Republic" - because the US Air Force immediately turned its back on the company.
  21. 0
    26 February 2025 19: 16
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: Grossvater
    And, excuse me, where did you get the firewood?

    According to Vasiliev, 9 shells were fired from September 18 to 1042.
    But there is no data on whether the BC was loaded after the transition to Kronstadt.

    Thank you!
  22. +2
    26 February 2025 19: 21
    Quote: dragon772
    In essence, it repeated the fate of the battleship Marat, after serious damage it became a floating battery.

    What damage? What was damaged on the Kirov that was not repaired during the war and did not allow it to go to sea? How did the poor steamer sail, I don’t remember exactly, until the seventies, I think?
  23. +1
    26 February 2025 19: 22
    Quote: Eug
    I wonder why this type of cruisers were not suitable for raiding? Too powerful? And also - here's an amateurish question - why didn't anyone build ships with "mixed" artillery - for example, instead of 12x152 - 6x152 and 4x203 in elevated turrets? I understand that the answer is somewhere, as they say, "on the surface", but I can't find it.

    How do you control fire?
  24. +1
    26 February 2025 19: 28
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    Like all other BF ships...

    Not quite so. The Baltic Fleet did not go to sea not because of damage, but because of the strategic situation.
    Guys! Am I the only one with this crap? You click to reply, but the reply is posted not under the message you're replying to, but five posts below! What vegetable?!
  25. 0
    26 February 2025 19: 31
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    Quote: Grossvater
    And, excuse me, where did you get the firewood?

    According to Vasiliev, 9 shells were fired from September 18 to 1042.
    But there is no data on whether the BC was loaded after the transition to Kronstadt.

    Thank you!

    However, the steamship was torn in half (which was enough for the BC), but the transverse bulkheads held up. At Arizona, the explosion broke through everything that was across and gutted the battleship.
    It looks like RIF has drawn some conclusions from RYAV.
    1. +2
      26 February 2025 20: 37
      Quote: Grossvater
      In Arizona, the explosion blew through everything that was across and gutted the LK.

      It would be good to find a "Damage Report" if one was compiled, but judging by the available diagrams, the "total loss" ended with the aft bulkhead of the engine room.

      Quote: Grossvater
      It looks like RIF has drawn some conclusions from RYAV.
      IMHO, if the Marat had not a linear-monotonous layout, but a linear-elevated one (like the Arizona), the result would have been the same: the hull would have been torn apart from the bow to the engine room.
  26. +3
    26 February 2025 19: 35
    Quote: Frank
    During the completion of the ship and the operation of complex German equipment, Soviet shipbuilding engineers gained valuable experience

    I would like to know what German experience, besides the submarine, was used in domestic projects?

    Quite a lot. Welding of hulls, sectional construction method, hull shape, especially the bow, inclusion of armor in the hull power scheme, fire control systems...
    1. +2
      26 February 2025 20: 12
      Quote: Grossvater
      inclusion of armor in the hull power circuit

      This was also used on Project 26...
  27. +1
    27 February 2025 13: 35
    "Chervona Ukraina" was just sunk at the base - in Sevastopol, next to the pier.

    Thanks for the clarification. My mistake was that I attributed the sunken Soviet cruiser in the open sea to the Luftwaffe. Thus, not only in battleships but also in Soviet cruisers, the Luftwaffe has a complete zero in the open sea. And this is for almost 4 years, of which the Luftwaffe had about 2 years of air supremacy in the theater of combat operations and often local superiority and then.
  28. +1
    27 February 2025 15: 40
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    If you look at it in the context of "completely drowned-drowned" (without taking into account "finish it off so it doesn't suffer"), then the British have four cruisers and about three dozen destroyers...

    If it doesn't drop destroyers (we're not talking about them) then the bottom line is 4 British cruisers. I got more - 7 British cruisers at sea from the Luftwaffe, but this is still a very modest result for 5 and a half years.
    1. +1
      27 February 2025 18: 00
      Quote: Kostadinov
      cruisers at sea from the Luftwaffe, but this is still a very modest result for 5 and a half years.

      Don’t you think that there are simply fewer cruisers and battleships than ships of other classes, and therefore their losses are lower?
  29. +1
    27 February 2025 15: 47
    Quote: Flying_Dutchman
    At that time, the entire Baltic Fleet was operating in floating battery mode, so there was not much difference between the immobile Marat and the mobile Kirov...

    At that moment it was true. But before that there was another moment no less important. Kirov defended Tallinn and evacuated troops from Tallinn. And then there was a big difference between the incapable German "cruiser" and Kirov.
    1. 0
      28 February 2025 10: 15
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And then there was a big difference between the German “cruiser”, which was unable to move, and the Kirov.

      Yeah ... able to move "Kirov" pulled away most of the escort and left with it, breaking away from the KON.
      By and large, the Kirov accomplished its only mission - it silenced the German battery at Cape Juminda. And it is unclear what caused the cessation of fire: either the 180-mm shells of the main battery of the cruiser scattered over the area, or the impossibility of aimed fire of field guns at moving targets at distances of about 100 kbt. During the shelling of previous Soviet KONs, the only achievement of the battery was the explosion of a shell near the side of tanker No. 11, which was part of the KON on 24.08.1941.
      Moreover, when the Juminda battery first opened fire on the Soviet ships (around 18:00, the target was KON 1), the Kirov was not nearby - and the KON 1 ships were covered by the destroyer Svirepy, which laid a smoke screen. The detachment of the main forces (which left after all the KONs) entered the battery's fire sector only an hour later and, after 6 salvos from the Kirov main battery, also took cover with a smoke screen. The detachment of the covering forces did the same.
  30. +1
    28 February 2025 12: 55
    By and large, the Kirov accomplished its only task: it silenced the German battery on Cape Juminda.

    Where did Kirov's participation in the defense and evacuation of Tallinn disappear? Or did the defense of Tallinn and the evacuation of the command and headquarters of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet have no significance?
  31. 0
    28 February 2025 13: 07
    Don’t you think that there are simply fewer cruisers and battleships than ships of other classes, and therefore their losses are lower?

    I find that as targets for aviation, battleships and cruisers are much more important, their size is larger and since they are much smaller in number, the all-crushing Luftwaffe should have destroyed them all if they stuck their noses out to sea. But it didn't work out, the Luftwaffe's result was very modest and battleships and cruisers turned out to be very difficult targets for German aviation.
    Do you feel the difference with Japanese, for example?
    1. 0
      28 February 2025 17: 46
      Quote: Kostadinov
      the all-crushing Luftwaffe should have destroyed them all if they stuck their noses into the sea

      Do you have any of your own complexes and complaints about "Goering's chicks"? :)

      Quote: Kostadinov
      But it didn’t work out, the Luftwaffe’s results were very modest and the battleships and cruisers turned out to be very difficult targets for the German aviation.

      It's hard to sink large ships with dive bombers alone...

      Quote: Kostadinov
      Do you feel the difference with Japanese, for example?

      Naturally, there was a difference: Japanese aviation (unlike German aviation) was mostly prepared to fight against ships.
  32. 0
    28 February 2025 18: 45
    Do you have any of your own complexes and complaints about "Goering's chicks"? :)

    I don’t have any complexes or even complaints about the German Air Force.
    It's hard to sink large ships with dive bombers alone...

    It would be a sin to say that the Luftwaffe lacked some weapons. You can't offend German engineers and workers like that. They gave their pilots torpedo bombers and torpedoes and everything else. Moreover, they armed them with guided bombs and missiles that other pilots, including the Japanese, could only dream of.
    1. 0
      28 February 2025 18: 57
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And they gave torpedo bombers, torpedoes and everything else to their pilots.

      Torpedo-carrying aviation in the normal sense appeared in the Luftwaffe only in the second half of 2, after intensive work with the Italians. The first massive use was the attack on convoy PQ-42.

      Quote: Kostadinov
      Moreover, they armed them with guided bombs and missiles.

      This wonder weapon was brought to operational status by the summer of 1943.
      First use of Fritz X - July 21, 1943.
      First use of Hs 293 - August 25, 1943.
      It should also be taken into account that this was not a weapon of mass use - only KG 100 and KG 40 worked with guided weapons.
  33. 0
    1 March 2025 22: 36
    Very interesting! Thank you very much.
  34. 0
    April 17 2025 07: 17
    Heavy cruiser of the Kronstadt type - the final version of the project carried 305-mm guns

    The illustration shows a ship of Project 69I, with 380 mm main guns.