Military Review

Aircraft carrier and battleship: changing of the guard

92



In the popular literature there are many absurd statements related to history naval development fleet. Many are still convinced that the "era of dreadnought" has been replaced by the "era of aircraft carriers." Often you hear that artillery ships are outdated with the advent of the deck aviation. That the formidable cruisers and battleships were useless and took only a limited part in World War II.

Misconceptions usually arise from not knowing the question. The Pacific theater of military operations, like most naval battles of the Second World War, “remained behind the scenes” of official Soviet history. As a result, many of us have no idea what happened in the Pacific between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.

Characteristically, the majority of opinions, in one way or another, represent the war between the United States and Japan, exclusively as the “aircraft carrier battle” - a raid on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto, the Battle of Midway, waves of Zero and Hellcat flying towards each other, burning Japanese Akagi and Kaga, sinking aircraft carrier Hornet ...

The story of Pearl Harbor everyone knows. But how many have heard of the "Second Pearl Harbor"? That is what they call the catastrophe at Savo Island - an artillery battle that occurred on the night from 8 to 9 in August 1942, and ended in the complete defeat of the American squadron. Four heavy cruisers, a thousand dead sailors - the severity of the losses was comparable to a raid on the Pearl Harbor.

Unlike the attack on Pearl Harbor, where the failures of the US Navy are usually explained by "Japanese cunning" and "sudden blow", the pogrom near Savo Island was a purely tactical victory for the Imperial Navy. The Japanese deftly went around the island counterclockwise and alternately shot the American and Australian cruisers. After that, they completely dissolved in the night mist, without losing a single ship on their part.
Aircraft carrier and battleship: changing of the guard

Heavy cruiser USS Baltimore (CA-68) - lead ship in a series of 14 units

No less an epic battle took place on 27 on February 1942 of the year in the Java Sea - the Imperial fleet defeated the combined squadron of the British Navy, the Dutch Navy and the US Navy: the Allies lost three cruisers and five destroyer squadrons! The remnants of the combined squadron went out of battle, not even picking up the crew of the dead ships from the water (the cruel logic of the war - otherwise everyone would die under enemy fire).
The day after the battle, the remains of the Allied squadron met again with the Japanese in Sunda Strait. Japanese destroyers fired 87 torpedoes on the American cruiser Houston and the Australian cruiser Perth, naturally destroying both Allied ships.

It is noteworthy that the pogrom in the Java Sea, the night battle off Savo Island and the torpedo madness in the Sunda Strait did not involve aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft - the outcome of the battles was decided by dashing torpedo attacks and the deadly fire of large-caliber artillery.

Interception of the "Tokyo Express" in Vella Bay (torpedo battle between destroyers of the US Navy and the Imperial Navy of Japan), night artillery duel at Cape Esperance, battle at Cape Lunga, massacre at Cape St. George (the improvement of the American radar by this time wound down the Japanese advantage in night battles - the Imperial fleet lost dry). And finally, an enchanting pogrom in the Surigao Strait: the destruction of Admiral Nishimura’s squadron by the joint efforts of American battleships, destroyers and torpedo boats. The Japanese lost two battleships, a cruiser and three destroyers, practically without harming the enemy.

Night artillery battle

The history clearly shows: the myths about the “era of dreadnoughts” and “the era of aircraft carriers” do not correspond to reality - artillery ships were used no less actively than aircraft carriers throughout the Second World War. At the same time, battleships, cruisers and carrier ships often fought in the same squadron, harmoniously complementing each other. Often, but not always. The number of day and night artillery duels, classical torpedo attacks and coastal attacks exceeded the number of operations in which deck aircraft participated.

All of the above is confirmed by the statistics of the construction of warships: during the war years, the Americans put into operation 22 heavy and 9 light aircraft carriers. However, during the same period of time, the US Navy received superlinkor and 12 artillery cruisers from the 46 industry!

Note. In addition to the "real" aircraft carriers, the US industry built escort aircraft carriers - as many as 130 units. But it is fair to say that the undisputed leader still became destroyers - 850 built ships for 5 years of war. Given these numbers, it is rather difficult to determine what was the priority of American sailors - aircraft carriers, cruisers or destroyers?

Due to their relative small size, the American and Japanese battleship only managed to test each other for strength twice. In addition to the already mentioned night battle in the Surigao Strait, in which the battleships Fuso and Yamashiro were killed, the American battleships succeeded in destroying the Kirishima battle cruiser in the battle of Guadalcanal Island on the night of November 14 of 1942. The US Navy paid dearly for the victory over "Kirishima": one of the participants of the battle - the battleship "South Dakota" was disabled for 14 months!

US Navy battleships on the way to the Philippine Sea, 1944 year

However, despite the apparent lack of tasks in the open sea, the monstrous guns of the battleships did not shut up for a minute - with the help of their "special equipment" the US Navy crushed the Japanese defensive perimeter on the islands of the Pacific Ocean. Methodically, island by island, the Americans leveled the Japanese positions to the ground, violently bombarded the fortifications, bases and airfields, burned storage and arsenals, destroyed communications.

On June 6, the compound entered the sea and from 11 to 13 struck Saipan and Tinian islands, after which the battleships began artillery bombardment of Saipan, covering the minesweepers. After the end of the trawling, the fire was transferred to ships in the harbor of Tanapag, most of which were destroyed and damaged. Huge fires began on the shore - it was burning ammunition, oil and supply depots.

November 28 North Caroline joined the Saratoga aircraft carrier group and continued operations in the Gilbert Islands region. On December 8, he participated in the shelling of Nauru Island, firing high-explosive shells on 538 along the railway line leading to the Japanese air base, radio station, shore fortifications and radar installations.

The first attacks on Kwajalein Atoll began on January 29, North Caroline began the bombing of the islands that entered the atoll of Roy and Namur. On the approach to Roy from the battleship, the transport standing in the lagoon was noticed, along which several volleys were immediately launched, causing fires from bow to stern. After the disruption of the runways of the Japanese, the battleship at night and the whole next day fired at the designated targets, simultaneously covering the aircraft carriers that supported the landing of troops on the neighboring islets.

- Chronicle of participation in the battleship of the battleship USS North Carolina (BB-55)

As for the "European" battleships, they, contrary to the myth of their "uselessness", also had a considerable influence on the course of hostilities.
The legendary naval battle in the Danish Channel - a successful volley of the battleship "Bismarck" overturned the British battleship "Hood" into the depths of the sea. Through the 3 of the day, 27 of May 1941 of the year, damaged by the deck Bismarck aircraft, was killed in a classic artillery battle with the battleship King George V and Rodney.

26 December 1943, the icy polar night, shook salvos in the Norwegian Sea - the Scharnhorst battleship destroyed by the Norfolk and Duke of York battleship was lost, with the support of their escort destroyers.

Much less known are other cases of the use of battleships in European waters:

- the attack of the British squadron on the French fleet in Mars-El-Kebir (Operation “Catapult”, July 3 1940);

- shootout of the American battleship "Massachusetts" with the French "Jean Bar" in the roads of Casablanca (November 8 1942);

- ineffectual sea battle 9 July 1940, in which the Italian battleships "Cavour" and "Giulio Cesare" (the future "Novorossiysk") fought with the British monster "Worspite".

And here is another little-known circumstance: during the raid into the Atlantic (January-March 1941 of the year), the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank 22 of the Allied transport ships with a total tonnage of over 115 thousand tons!

And how can one not recall the Soviet battleship Marat - even in a dilapidated state, he continued to fire at the enemy, defending approaches to Leningrad.

In addition to the raider operations, covering the bases and fire support of amphibious operations, the battleships of the naval forces of European countries performed an important “deterrent” function. The British fleet confused the Third Reich, - His Majesty’s menacing battleships became one of the factors that made the Germans abandon their landing on the British Isles.

The German "Tirpitz" by chance became one of the most effective ships of World War II - without making a single shot at enemy ships, he managed to stifle the actions of the British fleet in the entire North Atlantic and destroy the PQ-17 convoy with one of his views. So great was the fear of the German “wonderweapons»!
The best victory is the one that was won without a fight (Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”, 4th century BC).

But all the achievements of cruisers and battleships fade amid the success of the submarine fleet! There were no submarines, and there are no equal in efficiency - thousands of destroyed ships and vessels with a total tonnage of tens of millions of tons.

Here Gunter Prien and his U-47 penetrated into the main base of the British fleet in Scapa Flow - along the side of the battleship "Royal Oak" stand giant pillars of water. British anti-aircraft artillery opens fierce fire, the night sky is painted with incredibly beautiful fireworks of tracing bursts and searchlight beams ... It is impossible, simply impossible, to have an enemy submarine here. "Royal Oak" probably sank the German aircraft ...

But another story. Three torpedo hits - and the explosion of ammunition cellars carries the battleship Barham to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. The U-331 submarine is recording a rather big trophy ...

USS Indeanapolis (CA-35) —this handsome man delivered nuclear charges to Tinian

American submarines literally "devoured" Japanese cruisers - "Atago", "Agano", "Asigara", "Maya", "Takao" ...
They didn’t stand on ceremony with aircraft carriers - the main part of Japanese aircraft carrying ships was sunk using submarines: Taiho, Shokaku, Shinano, Dzunyo, Unryu ... The US Navy seriously suffered from Japanese submarines - the Americans lost aircraft carriers Yorktown and Wasp. The British fleet suffered even more - the submariners Kriegsmarine sank the aircraft carriers Eagle, Koreizhes and Ark Royal.

By the way, the biggest tragedy in the history of the US Navy (the largest number of casualties among personnel as a result of one submersion) is the death of the Indianapolis cruiser 30 on July 1945 of the year recorded at the expense of the Japanese submarine I-58. The Japanese were exactly four days late - they sank the cruiser a little earlier, the nuclear bombs that were aboard the Indianapolis would never have fallen on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japanese submarines in the dock of the Navy Kure

Submarines are a simple, cheap and powerful tool, ideally “sharpened” for a sea battle. Destructive, undetectable, and therefore even more terrible weapons attacking from the depths of the ocean - the submarines became even more dangerous with the advent of nuclear power plants and modern sonar systems. It is in the successes of the submarine fleet is one of the reasons for the "obsolescence" of artillery dreadnoughts ... however, this is slightly lower.

Where are the artillery cruisers and battleships in our time?

Answer: they did not disappear anywhere. How so? - the reader will be surprised - since the end of the Second World War, not a single battleship has been built all over the world. British "Vanguard" (1946 year) - "swan song" of the glorious era of dreadnoughts.

The explanation of the strange disappearance of artillery ships sounds quite prosaic –the ships evolved, turning into an URO cruiser (with guided missile weapons). The era of naval artillery was replaced by an era of missiles.

HMS Vanguard. Last battleship in history

The battleships, of course, were no longer built - their cost was too high by the standards of peacetime. Moreover, there was no longer any need for bulky and heavy guns of large caliber. The most modest rocket was capable of delivering with high precision hundreds of kilograms of explosives to a distance of 100, or even more than a kilometer - it is difficult to imagine the size of an artillery gun comparable in range with a rocket weapon!

However, until the end of the 1950-s, artillery cruisers continued to be built - for example, 14 Soviet ships designed by 68-bis, heavy American cruisers of the Oregon and Des Moines types, light cruisers of the Fargo, Worchester, " Juno "...

But gradually, strange metamorphoses began to occur with the newly built new cruisers — the towers disappeared, and beam-type rocket launchers appeared on the decks. Rockets literally supplanted artillery in their eyes.

Heavy cruisers of the “Baltimore” type (were built during the war) were upgraded according to the “Boston” project - with the installation of the marine “Terrier” air defense system instead of the aft tower. Nasal artillery group remained unchanged.
Light cruisers of the “Cleveland” type (also of military construction) were gradually transformed according to the Galveston project with the installation of the Talos long-range anti-aircraft missile system.

Upgraded cruiser USS Canderra (CAG-2), launch of the Terrier anti-aircraft missile

Initially, this process was local in nature - the characteristics of the missiles, as well as their reliability, left much to be desired. But soon there was a breakthrough: by the end of 1950-ies, a project was developed for the total modernization of artillery cruisers under the Albany project - the artillery was completely dismantled from the ships, four naval air defense missile systems with their fire control systems were installed.

Simultaneously with the Albany project, the shipyard laid the first fully-fledged special-class cruiser, the inimitable atomic Long Beach, launched in the 1959 year. Along with the heavy, high-tech nuclear super-cruiser, a series of 9 lightweight Lei-class missile cruisers (URO cruisers) was laid ... soon the Israeli destroyer Eilat and the rocket euphoria would cover the whole world from a Soviet anti-ship missile.

At the same time, the Soviet Union was building analogs of Lehi - the 58 project missile cruisers (the cipher “Grozny”) and a series of 20 anti-submarine frigates of the 61 project (the cipher “Komsomolets Ukraine”). However, unlike the American escort cruisers, the Soviet ships of the 58 project were originally designed for independent operations on sea lanes and equipped with a set of strike weapons.

The conclusions from this story are pretty simple:

No replacement of battleships on aircraft carriers has never been. These are completely different in purpose ships and any competition between them is impossible.
This statement is true for any artillery ships - cruisers are still being built in all developed countries of the world, but priority in their armament is given to rocket weapons.

As noted above, the development of the submarine fleet contributed to the disappearance of giant superlinkers - there is no point in increasing the thickness of the armor belt if a torpedo volley from an enemy nuclear submarine would still send the battleship to the bottom.

A certain (rather negative) role was played by the emergence of nuclear weapons - all modern ships without fail have anti-nuclear and chemical protection, but fade to ashes and drown from falling into ordinary ammunition. From this point of view, the cruiser of the Second World War has an absolute advantage over any of the modern warships.

As for the historical retrospective, the reasoning on the subject of “conquering Japan by means of aircraft carriers” is nothing more than a popular myth. Carriers played an important but far from a key role in the war in the Pacific - according to statistics, submarines, cruisers and destroyers made the main losses to the warring parties. And the vast majority of battles in the Pacific took place in the form of classic artillery duels and torpedo attacks.

No doubt, the legendary "Yorktown" and "Essexes" were real heroes - carrier ships had an exceptional advantage in controlling airspace, the combat radius of deck aircraft was incommensurable with the range of artillery - the planes overtook the enemy hundreds of kilometers away from their ship. However, the "era" of aircraft carriers ended pretty soon. Deck aviation completely went bankrupt with the advent of modern jet aircraft and air-to-air refueling systems - as a result, modern aircraft do not need "floating airfields". However, this is another story.


The ship-museum of USS Iowa (BB-61) at the eternal parking in Los Angeles.



Modern descendants of the legendary cruisers of World War II


Author:
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Romn
    Romn April 8 2013 08: 58 New
    0
    The Soviet Union had experience building heavy aircraft cruisers, I would even say aircraft carrier missile cruisers. Fine cars, but in my opinion, not one has survived to our days unfortunately. If not right, correct.
  2. Romn
    Romn April 8 2013 09: 04 New
    +4
    The Soviet Union had experience building heavy aircraft cruisers, I would even say aircraft carrier missile cruisers. Fine cars, but in my opinion, not one has survived to our days unfortunately. If not right, correct.
  3. jayich
    jayich April 8 2013 09: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: Romn
    The Soviet Union had experience building heavy aircraft cruisers, I would even say aircraft carrier missile cruisers. Fine cars, but in my opinion, not one has survived to our days unfortunately. If not right, correct.

    Well, why is Admiral Kuznetsov, though since some year he can’t use anti-ship missiles, but I don’t really hope after capital
    1. Romn
      Romn April 8 2013 09: 23 New
      0
      It saddens me that they did not protect a huge treasure. I'm talking about the 1143 Project Carrier Cruiser “Krechet” (“Kiev” -class according to NATO classification). I read that these ships were a grandiose decision, since they performed the functions of several types of ships at once.
      1. Russian
        Russian April 8 2013 10: 24 New
        +2
        In my opinion, it’s still a controversial project, the decision to place a sufficient amount of weapons and aircraft on the ship, led to the fact that the ship was not a full-fledged aircraft carrier and at the same time did not possess outstanding military characteristics. Now we already realized that it’s better not to combine these things, otherwise uniformity leads to a reduction in the effectiveness of both parameters.
        I’m sorry, most of all from surface ships I feel sorry for Ulyanovsk, this really should have been a major breakthrough in the construction of aircraft carriers.
        1. Romn
          Romn April 8 2013 14: 15 New
          +2
          Perhaps you are certainly right, there can be no one ship equally good in everything. But it seems to me that if these ships were modified a little (for example, by installing a catapult, similar to the catapult installed on American aircraft carriers for the initial acceleration of the aircraft), it would be possible to base other types of aircraft, I personally personally like these ships and cause some admiration. Universal ships capable of providing air cover for a group of ships in open waters and at the same time provide fire support. But now there’s no point in discussing it, there are none and probably will not be anymore ...
        2. seafarer
          seafarer April 15 2013 01: 33 New
          +1
          TAKR pr.1143 - excellent ships. But do not confuse them with aircraft carriers, which many sin.
          The main strike complex on the TAKRs is the Bazalt PKKK. And the functions of an air wing (Yak-38 and Ka-25/27) are completely different from those of an air wing of classic aircraft carriers. More precisely, they perform only part of the functions. Let me remind you that the Yak-38 is a deck attack plane and nothing more. And do not compare it with fighters, bombers, torpedo bombers. And in comparison with the closest Sea Harrier, so our Yak-38 is not inferior to him.
          And if the Yak-141 came into service .... With them, our TAKRs would drive the entire Royal Navy in the tail and mane.
          PS I completely forgot about the Polyn GAS and RPK Vikhr installed on the TAKRs. These two weapons systems provided effective anti-aircraft defense throughout the Kug.
          1. Waterfall
            Waterfall April 15 2013 02: 23 New
            0
            “Polynomial” only on “Novorossiysk” and “Baku”, “whirlwind” only with NBC with all that it implies.
            Quote: seafarer
            great ships. But do not confuse them with aircraft carriers, which many sin.

            So it is not clear what happened, unable to provide air defense connections.
      2. nnz226
        nnz226 April 8 2013 13: 26 New
        +2
        The wing on these cruisers did not stand up to criticism: the Yak-38 was even inferior to the Harriers, not to mention other planes from US aircraft carriers, and the Yak-131 (it seems such a number) did not reach the decks of these cruisers ...
    2. StolzSS
      StolzSS April 8 2013 20: 01 New
      0
      It cannot and indeed it’s more reasonable to give those spaces to other needs. And Yes, a major reconstruction of this ship is vitally necessary otherwise Trindec .....
  4. smart ass
    smart ass April 8 2013 09: 23 New
    0
    Author ЖЖОТ))))

    Everyone knows the story of Pearl Harbor. But how many have heard of Second Pearl Harbor? That’s what the disaster at Savo Island is called - the artillery battle that took place on the night of August 8–9, 1942, and ended in the complete defeat of the American squadron. Four heavy cruisers, a thousand dead sailors - the severity of the losses was comparable to the raid on the "Pearl Harbor"


    EEEE and how many "Dreadnought" participated in this pogrom on both sides ???????
    For example, I know without Google that 0!

    Then where does it mean- "There are a lot of absurd statements in popular literature related to the history of the development of the Navy. Many are still convinced that the" era of dreadnought "was replaced by the" era of aircraft carriers ""

    Hmmmm ... So one thing remains ... The author equates the heavy cruisers with the "Dreadnought"

    But ... wait a minute .... this is the same as comparing an ass! With a finger!

    The battleships left, as once sailing ships of the line ... aviks and missile cruisers came, everything is right and it should be. The most LITTLE use of the battleship during WWII was demonstrated by the GERMANS, it stands peacefully "TIRIPITS" in the parking lot ....And the English have to drive convoys in a big circle, and also a cover group of Avik and heavy. cruisers to freeze .. develop a resource, burn fuel, hold down strength .... beauty
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius April 8 2013 10: 14 New
      0
      The author sets out his point of view. In some ways, he is right, because there were purely artillery battles in that war. Let a few, albeit more often night, but were. Another thing is that the author does not mention the operational-strategic alignment of forces in the theater. If he did, then it would become clear why such art fights became possible.
      heavy cruisers to the "Dreadnought"

      The heavy cruiser (battle cruiser) is not much inferior to the battleship in the Civil Code and armor.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass April 8 2013 11: 20 New
        0
        There is a heavy cruiser, there is a linear cruiser ... Completely different apparts for completely different purposes) specialist comrade)
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius April 8 2013 12: 34 New
          +3
          Tell me, if you can, of course, what was the difference in the use of heavy and battle cruisers in the war in the Pacific Ocean.
          Another difficult task for you is to try to do it without a capsule and all that, an outstanding specialist in you: "The author is ZHOT !! 11GY."
          1. smart ass
            smart ass April 8 2013 14: 42 New
            +1
            Open the wiki ... and type a heavy cruiser ... read ... well and then the battle cruiser .. Everything is written there. And even what is a linear battle ... well, that's all ... Well, if the author is nonsense, I can’t say anything except the ZhZHOT ... And by the way, Bismarck sank, put down the deck, if I remember correctly ... brought out of order steering wheel and Bismarck helplessly described circles, waiting for battle with battleships)
            1. Alex
              Alex 29 September 2013 23: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Clever man
              And by the way, Bismarck sank, put on deck, if my memory serves me ... disabled the steering wheel and Bismarck helplessly described circles, waiting for the battle with battleships)

              Memory really cheats on you. “Bismarck” was flooded with the battleships “King George V” (flag of Admiral Tovey) and “Rodney” (actually, one “Rodney” - Tovey did not want to shoot new guns of “George”). Torpedo bombers “Swordfish” struck two (according to other sources - three) hits, one of which DAMAGED the Bismarck steering, which became fatal for him. I think the difference in damage and destruction of the ship does not need to be explained. In general, this battle is a vivid confirmation of the thesis about the competent interaction of an aircraft carrier and artillery ships.
      2. nnz226
        nnz226 April 8 2013 13: 28 New
        +1
        In fact, the “heavy cruiser” and the “linear cruiser” are two big differences: the former have a main caliber of no more than 203 mm, and the latter have up to 356 mm. As the saying goes, "find eight differences!"
        1. smart ass
          smart ass April 8 2013 16: 33 New
          -1
          Well, I'm talking about too)) only for some reason there are so many minuses))
        2. Alex
          Alex 29 September 2013 23: 07 New
          +3
          Quote: nnz226 (2)
          In fact, the “heavy cruiser” and the “linear cruiser” are two big differences: the former have a main caliber of no more than 203 mm, and the latter have up to 356 mm.

          For heavy cruisers of the Deutschland type, the GK was 283 mm.
        3. Mikhail Zhukov
          Mikhail Zhukov 10 September 2015 12: 30 New
          0
          Hood, Ripals, etc. Isn’t it 15 "had in service?))
      3. seafarer
        seafarer April 15 2013 02: 24 New
        0
        So they were at night because the Japanese did not risk entering the aviation coverage area during the day.
    2. Beck
      Beck April 8 2013 10: 39 New
      +5
      The author is a fan of artillery. And there’s nothing seditious. But the battles and sinking of the cruisers described by him had only operational and tactical significance. The victories of the US carrier fleet were of strategic importance in the outcome of the war.

      It is possible that there will be a romantic sailing fleet and will write an article that a sailing fleet is better than a steam fleet because it does not carry ballast in the form of coal. And it doesn’t burn him, throwing unmasking fumes into the pipes.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 8 2013 13: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Beck
        Author artillery fan

        No, the author is just a fan of aviation
      2. postman
        postman April 8 2013 13: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        The author is a fan of artillery.

        Missiles, missiles and aviation (not deck) / Kars correctly wrote!
        He (the author) did not even convince the accuracy / cost / range of the ARS (according to serious sources).
        Says: come on a bomb and a rocket.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 13: 30 New
          +1
          Oh, the postman has appeared!
          Quote: Postman
          Says: come on a bomb and a rocket.

          This is exactly what we are seeing in all conflicts since the time of Korea.
          Quote: Kars
          No, the author is just a fan of aviation

          boats and destroyers are good too
          1. Kars
            Kars April 8 2013 13: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            boats and destroyers are good too

            but is the F-15 with a tanker better?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is exactly what we are seeing in all conflicts since the time of Korea.

            it is a pity we only lack statistics on the consumption of artillery (ships, land artillery from 105 mm) and aviation ammunition.
            1. Santa Fe
              April 8 2013 13: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              but is the F-15 with a tanker better?

              In some cases, it is indispensable.
              Quote: Kars
              it is a pity we only lack statistics on the consumption of artillery (ships, land artillery from 105 mm) and aviation ammunition.

              and where is the land artillery? Aviation is not a competitor to her
              1. Kars
                Kars April 8 2013 13: 50 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In some cases, it is indispensable.

                One thing only pleases that almost no one has this bunch, and if there is, then the number is very limited.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This is exactly what we are seeing in all conflicts since Korea.

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                and where is the land artillery? Aviation is not a competitor to her

                Well, why, if it were as you say, super rockets and bombs would crush the land artillery, as happened in Nikita Sergeyech’s fantasies.

                Aviation has an advantage in range of use. The only thing that is difficult to disagree with. But within the range of the artillery fire of the LC,
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 8 2013 14: 09 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Kars
                  One thing only pleases that almost no one has this bunch, and if there is, then the number is very limited.

                  Almost every NATO country has tankers. Even Singapore has a couple
                  The same goes for the F-15
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, why, if it were as you say, then super missiles and bombs would crush land artillery

                  at the forefront, artillery is becoming a formidable force - it has a number of advantages and in general it’s not a competitor

                  The whole problem is delivery to the front edge. If M-20 can be brought in, and Acacia will come by herself, then what about Iowa?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 8 2013 14: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    and if there is, then the number is very limited

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    at the forefront of artillery

                    Quote: Kars
                    Aviation has an advantage in range

                    It's a shame that the pictures are not inserted. I would have thrown a photo of the Washington shooting jap.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      April 8 2013 14: 31 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      I would have thrown a photo of Washington by a shooting jap.

                      No, it's too commonplace
                      Better attach a photo of Iowa shooting Belgrade)))
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 8 2013 14: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        from Iowa, shooting Belgrade)))

                        Alas, alas - but you can turn on imagination and imagine that any tomahawk has surpassed it, even though I was put in the conservatory))) after the final collapse of the USSR and the Desert Storm.

                        but there is Vietnam, Korea, etc.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        April 8 2013 15: 22 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        you can turn on the imagination and imagine that any tomahawk is a prill from it

                        Tomahawks can launch any miserable destroyer
                        UKKS generally put on the IAC

                        we are talking specifically about large-caliber naval artillery - is there a photo of a battleship shelling Baghdad? or at least a cruiser shooting along the ho chi minh trail?
                      3. Kars
                        Kars April 8 2013 15: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        is there a photo of a battleship shelling Baghdad? or at least a cruiser shooting along the ho chi minh trail?

                        If they are within reach)))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Tomahawks can launch any miserable destroyer

                        How can these miserable destroyers lose their combat effectiveness from one miserable Exocet. At the same time, their prices are high enough to be scattered by them.

                        A modern battleship --- at least someone will build it --- the USA does not need it, Russia can hardly cope with 8000.
                        But to speculate on the most efficient unit of the fleet still does not interfere.
                        And as we see the United States is still trying to stir up something with long-range artillery.
                  2. postman
                    postman April 8 2013 17: 15 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Better attach a photo of Iowa shooting Belgrade)))

                    This Belgrade was given to you.
                    Lebanon is not enough?

                    It’s just that in Sava, in the Danube, you can run aground.
                    And in the Adriatic there are many shallows
                    [media = http: //ziwa.org/img/block.gif]
                    And do not get art to there (far = 500km away)
                  3. Santa Fe
                    April 8 2013 17: 51 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    If they are within reach)))

                    Quote: Postman
                    And do not get art to there (far = 500km away)

                    What are we talking about)))
                    Quote: Kars
                    Russia is struggling with 8000.

                    8000 An Unattainable Dream
                    so far the limit is 4000 (Indian Talwar)
                    Quote: Kars
                    at least someone will build it --- USA he does not need

                    why?
                    Quote: Kars
                    But to speculate on the most efficient unit of the fleet still does not interfere.

                    ohio boat
                  4. Kars
                    Kars April 8 2013 18: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    What are we talking about)))

                    Quote: Kars
                    Aviation has an advantage in range

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    why?

                    Opponents do not see + your 800 airbases.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    ohio boat

                    Well, this is a conversion, so as not to saw how the Russian Federation will be with the Sharks. How much new Ohio is? Again a nuclear reactor. It seems unrealistic to order such a thing from third countries, even though the same UVP has gotten quite widespread.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 April 8 2013 13: 33 New
    +5
    Large-caliber artillery has not been canceled! And here is the addiction of the author of the article ?! Recall how the Americans put out their battleships, pulled them from the Great Lakes and drove them to the shores of Vietnam for shelling, because it turned out that the shooting of the straw huts of the URO and NURS does not justify itself according to the criterion born then: "cost-cost (of the destroyed target)" Again Lebanon 1982 of the year. The picture of the shelling of the coast by the battleship Missouri (it seems) went through all the TV channels of the world. Not aircraft carriers, not cruisers URO did not participate in this. Dear sir!
  • nnz226
    nnz226 April 8 2013 13: 27 New
    0
    Well, “Kirishima” was jammed in the artillery battle “South Dakota” and some other US battleship, according to the classics.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 13: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: nnz226
      Again Lebanon 1982 of the year. The picture of the shelling of the coast by the battleship Missouri (it seems) went through all the TV channels of the world. Not aircraft carriers, not cruisers URO did not participate in this. Dear sir!

      The US Navy carrier-based aircraft attempted to solve the problem of destroying an air defense system in the Bekaa Valley - lost two attack aircraft in the first flight and ... had to call "New Jersey"
      Fortunately, the positions of the Syrian air defense systems were in 40 km from the coast
      Quote: nnz226
      “Kirishima” was overwhelmed in the artillery battle “South Dakota” and some other US battleship, according to the classics.

      “Washington” sneaked up behind)))
      1. Bronis
        Bronis April 8 2013 15: 56 New
        +5
        Everything as usual. All are right. smile
        In general, I don’t understand why to compare which is better - a URA cruiser / destroyer or an aircraft carrier?
        If we talk about the time of WWII, the aircraft carriers showed their effectiveness in combat properties, in general (but not in all tactical niches) surpassed the artillery of battleships. But with the advent of cruisers and destroyers URO the situation has changed somewhat. And the aircraft carrier and destroyer URO (for the standard we take the American) can strike along the coast. Moreover, the destroyer, as a rule - in the first wave - before the aircraft. On the other hand, both the destroyer and the aircraft carrier need air defense, and most importantly, the ability to detect enemy ships and aircraft at maximum range.
        Thus, an aircraft carrier is the "eyes" of the squadron, the long-range air defense line (against aviation) and the "long arm" in the fight against enemy ships.
        The near (mainly "anti-ballistic") air defense zone is precisely the destroyers. For the Americans, their capabilities against ships are not paramount - the last destroyers do not have anti-ship missiles at all (but they can be mounted). The destroyers also need artillery both as a weapon of close self-defense (you never know what a rifle boat is carrying) and as a means of supporting expeditionary forces — this is especially true for banana wars. And far from always high-precision weapons can solve all problems - sometimes it is necessary to cover area targets for even more modest money.
        So one thing is not an alternative to the other, but an addition. The survival rate of a destroyer or aircraft carrier separately is not as high as together.
  • common man
    common man April 8 2013 18: 34 New
    +1
    Heavy cruisers can be compared with battleships in the same way as escort aircraft carriers with heavy, squadron. The former are artillery ships, the latter are aircraft carriers. And the author writes not about the role of battleships, but about the role of artillery ships in the Second World War. And also about the role of submarines. Well, "ASS! With a finger!" these are of course different things.
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 8 2013 21: 02 New
      0
      )))) sarcasm is clear
  • Delta
    Delta April 8 2013 20: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Clever man
    Author ЖЖОТ))))

    Who would doubt it. For him there were no aircraft carriers, there is not and will not be)))) Under the Falklands, he also did not have aircraft carriers, there the container ship only transported Harriers))) Well, the USSR generally "dabbled" in his expression, creating aircraft carriers, and in general, everyone was mistaken and mistaken in his opinion. He is one genius. Either he dreams of aircraft carriers in terrible dreams, or even worse ...
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 22: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: Delta
      Under the Falklands, he also had no aircraft carriers.

      There were. And what's the point?

      - THREE ships of the squadron Her Majesty received bomb and missile hits;

      - 6 ships were sunk, 20 damaged - 80% of the Argentine bombs that hit the target did not explode;

      - decked Harriers caused 28% of losses of Argentinean air force (taking into account destroyed corn kernels at Port Stanley airport), the remaining 72% were accounted for by sea air defense systems, MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery;

      Conclusion: Harriers were less useful than garbage cans - instead of building these expensive and ineffective Wunderwaffles, it would be better for the British to buy Falanks self-defense systems in the USA - there would be more benefit (which, incidentally, was done urgently in the summer of 1982 of the year)
      1. Delta
        Delta April 8 2013 22: 35 New
        +1
        or maybe then it would be better for the Argentines (well, by the same logic) not to use bombs, but boarding teams? By the way, bombs do not explode at all. In the Baltic in 1985, the leadership of one of the port Soviet cities decided to use bombs against ice (fish farms could not come to the port). Result - the majority did not explode and still lie at the bottom.

        According to the Harriers: why did the British sing odes to them? oh yes, they are fools again)))

        Incidentally, 28% is a lot. And they, too, needed to be destroyed, and who knows, would these 28% have been destroyed or would have played a role if they had not been destroyed by the Harriers
        1. Santa Fe
          April 9 2013 01: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          or maybe then it would be better for the Argentines (well, by the same logic) not to use bombs, but boarding teams?

          after the capture of the Falklands, the Argentines should IMMEDIATELY begin to extend the runways of Port Stanley Airport (length before reconstruction of 4000 feet); without this, there was no way to win the war.

          Before the arrival of the British nuclear submarines, the torchachos managed to deliver soldiers, fuel, and even armored personnel carriers to the 5000 island - they had time to equip a fast-built runway and extend the runway.
          By the way, the first thing the British did after winning the war was to erect a new 3000 meter concrete in Port Stanley
          Quote: Delta
          By the way, bombs do not explode at all.

          If the war did not explode 80% of ammunition - all wars would cease)))
          The Argentines had 30 bombs a year ago - and that’s an unfortunate result.
          By the way, the same thing probably applies to your case in the Baltic - outdated bombs with an expiration date were thrown.
          Quote: Delta
          According to the Harriers: why did the British sing odes to them?

          Normal PR. In reality, they urgently bought the Phalanxes
          Quote: Delta
          by the way, 28% - a lot

          few, very few. Disproportionately to the means spent - miserable frigates and destroyers shot down THREE TIMES MORE aircraft

          It would be more useful if the British built several additional destroyers and frigates of the URO instead of the Hermes and Invincible
          Quote: Delta
          and who knows would

          but it’s known for sure that if there were a few more bombs, the British would be at war.

          Sir Tristram returns home via the Dan Lifter platform. The ship burned through and lost buoyancy, by the way, is not among the "officially lost" six ships. The sailors thank the Harrier pilots for their excellent cover.
  • as3wresdf
    as3wresdf April 8 2013 09: 56 New
    0
    The base of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of all citizens of the Russian Federation on this site twitlink.ws/baza and most importantly did something like searching for lost relatives, but here is all the information about each of us: correspondence with friends, addresses, phone numbers, place of work, and what’s worst is even mine exposure of photos (I don’t know where from ...). In general, I was very scared - but there is such a function as “hide data”, of course I took advantage of it and I advise everyone not to hesitate,
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius April 8 2013 10: 09 New
    +1
    Amusing material selection, thanks!
    I noticed a mistake in the text - "Sugario". Perhaps the Surigao is right?
    The fact that the era of battleships passed was written by the direct participants in the Pacific War. In particular, F. Sherman. It was the battleships that built purely by virtue of the doctrine of thinking of a number of people from the Joint Headquarters Committee. Of course, it is impossible to completely abandon artillery on ships, but the battleship in the form in which it left the WWII is absolutely not viable.
    These are completely different ships for their purpose and any competition between them is impossible.

    In this I do not agree. In short: battleship - a ship designed to conduct battle in a wake column and gain supremacy at sea. Aircraft carrier is a ship designed for combat by carrier-based aircraft with aviation and enemy ships to gain dominance in the air and at sea.
    In principle, the purpose and use of an aircraft carrier is more universal and powerful in its effect on the enemy than the fire action of a battleship. This was proved by the battle between artillery ships and aircraft.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 13: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      the battleship in the form in which he left WWII is completely unviable.

      That "Iowa" still 50 years served along with Nimitsy

      The battleship of the 1945 model of the year had a problem with air defense - it was solved by installing air defense systems and automatic anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance
  • Canep
    Canep April 8 2013 10: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: Clever man
    The GERMAN use of the battleship during WWII was demonstrated by the GERMANS, peacefully “TIRPITS” parked .... And the English have to drive convoys in a big circle, and also a cover group from Avik and heavy. cruisers to freeze .. develop a resource, burn fuel, hold down strength .... beauty

    The Germans, in my opinion, used submarines most competently. After they lost Bismarck in the first campaign, they thought: for these grandmas (who are at the bottom of the Atlantic), it was possible to build submarines as much as Dönitz requested. If he received them, it is not known how and when the war would end.
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 8 2013 11: 23 New
      0
      I am also a supporter of the submarine fleet .. But this is a completely different topic comrades
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius April 8 2013 10: 43 New
    0
    Because the inertia of thinking is a very powerful thing. Until Midway, the Americans believed that the fate of the war would be decided by their battleships in a general battle. If the Japanese hadn’t riveted super linkors, but had done 100500 submarines, the script could have taken a different path too.
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 8 2013 14: 55 New
      0
      At the beginning of WWII, Japan had one of the strongest submarine fleets in the world, but to no avail, tactics were lame. For a super battleship it was necessary to come up with tactics of application, there would be more benefit.
      1. common man
        common man April 8 2013 18: 50 New
        0
        The Japanese did not use submarines on merchant ships. Only for the military. Why I do not know. Hence the low efficiency of use.
        1. Delta
          Delta April 8 2013 20: 32 New
          +3
          The reason for this should be sought in the Japanese nation itself. Well, in his book "The Battle Path of the Imperial Navy," Dall described:
          "Shinto’s primitive medieval mythology often controlled the actions of this nation.. The Japanese believed that they were ruled by a divine emperor, a direct descendant of Emperor Jimmu, who came down from heaven in 660 BC to rule the Japanese. Yes, and they considered themselves descendants of the younger gods. Between the 1868th and XNUMXth centuries, Japan turned from a collection of feudal principalities into a single feudal (although specifically Japanese) state. All these centuries the military ruled there. Action has always been preferred to the word. After a nation-state was created in Japan in XNUMX, it was also saturated with the spirit of militarism. The Japanese always considered themselves indebted to the emperor, moreover, this debt cannot be paid even by death.The Japanese believed that their country is unique, due to its origin and political system. She never lost wars. When the Mongols landed on the shores of Kyushu in the XNUMXth century, the typhoon melted the Mongol fleet, and the surviving enemies fled. The typhoon was called "kamikaze - the divine wind." Such legends nourished the Nihon Seishin, a belief in the Japanese spirit that would prevail over any enemy. The influence of such beliefs was extremely strong among the military, especially among junior officers, whose worldview was severely limited by education. However, they strongly influenced the behavior of almost the entire Japanese people.
          Hence the Japanese’s rejection of the submarine war, in principle, as a war of “dishonest”, unworthy of a samurai (the British attacked it in World War I), and even more so - the use of submarines in some means of transport, and not in warships. By the end of the war, the Japanese realized a mistake, but it was too late
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay April 8 2013 11: 00 New
    +2
    And yet, two-thirds of the tonnage in the Second World War was sunk by aircraft, followed by submarines and mines, and only 7% of the tonnage was sunk by artillery ships.
    1. Rustiger
      Rustiger April 8 2013 13: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      And yet, two-thirds of the tonnage in the Second World War was sunk by aircraft, followed by submarines and mines, and only 7% of the tonnage was sunk by artillery ships.


      More precisely -
      Losses from aviation: 17
      Losses from surface ships: 7
      Submarine Losses: 3
      Other causes: 2

      Here is a review of the losses of the "large-tonnage" navy of the warring parties in the Second World War.

      http://army-news.ru/2012/12/linkory-smert-ili-gibernaciya/

      And about the battleships.
      In short. . .
      And I was prompted to write it by watching the film “Sea Battle”, or rather, one of his moments: the battle of the battleship “Missouri” with unknown crap of alien origin. Whoever has not watched this film will explain in a nutshell: water transformers flew to Earth, captured Pearl Harbor and wanted to send a signal from there to the main squadron. The area around the island was covered with a force field. By a strange coincidence, all the ships were in exercises, three destroyers fell into the zone. Two drowned immediately, the third bit managed to fight. And then the survivors, with the help of veterans, hijacked the Missouri exhibit and shot the alien base from the main caliber. The field has disappeared, aircraft carriers, a happy end, have been used.
      1. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay April 8 2013 17: 30 New
        0
        I had in mind the general tonnage, which includes both combat and transport vessels.
    2. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 13: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      And yet, two-thirds of the tonnage in WWII was sunk by aircraft

      The fate of the Second World War was decided on the shore.
      The Germans and I had practically no sea battles, just as there were no battleships and aircraft carriers. There were not even heavy cruisers (Sheer’s single “raider campaigns” in the Arctic did not affect the overall picture).

      Self-propelled (high-speed?) Landing barge is the main character in the Black Sea (sorry, the picture did not attach - here is the address:
      http://sea-transport.ru/images/stories/main1/desantnaya%20barzha.JPG
      1. Delta
        Delta April 8 2013 20: 39 New
        0
        and not forget the battle near Kuantan, where the English powerful battleship and battlecruiser went to the bottom. And probably they were sunk by cruisers and battleships, yeah))))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 22: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          and not forget the battle near Kuantan, where the English powerful battleship and battlecruiser went to the bottom. And they were probably sunk by cruisers and battleships, yeah

          They were sunk by the base aircraft, flying out of Saigon
          1. Delta
            Delta April 8 2013 22: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            They were sunk by the base aircraft, flying out of Saigon

            yes, I know. I’m not saying that their carrier-based aircraft drowned. I mean, what Nikolai said about the sunken ships, and then he bang! WWII fate was decided on land. And then what did they do at sea? instead of attacks by convoys of Germans deprived Italians and Germans of Africa? and weren’t the attacks of German submarines putting Britain in a critical position when there was a time that food supplies, thanks to the blockade, remained for a couple of months? I'm not talking about the Pacific Ocean, where everything depended on ships and everything was decided in their battles. And while the fate of WWII was decided on land. The fate of the Great Patriotic War (as part of WWII) - yes.
            1. Santa Fe
              April 9 2013 01: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              WWII fate was decided on land

              The fate of the Second World War. Great Patriotic War
              Quote: Delta
              The fate of the Great Patriotic War (as part of WWII) - yes.

              this was discussed
  • Mikola
    Mikola April 8 2013 12: 27 New
    +5
    Again the lame author is limping with facts
    destroyed by the battleships Norfolk and Duke of York


    battleship Norfolk ?! (Before the author’s article, it was a heavy cruiser smile )

    Again, the author of the calves confuses the cows - compares the loss of submarines and aircraft carriers or the construction count of destroyers and aircraft carriers

    And most importantly, having missed the author, aircraft carriers decided the outcome of strategic battles instead of battleships as once. And artillery ships decided the outcome of tactical battles. World War II showed that the strategic tasks are solved by aircraft carriers and not battleships, which determined the fate of the battleships. But the cruisers remained in the fleets, because how they solved tactical tasks then and now, they simply evolved weapons to rocket. This is not the first article of this author in which he simply does not understand the very meaning of the existence of aircraft carriers ...
    The main strategic task of the fleet is to control the sea. And this does not solve either the submarine, even if there are hundreds of them (the example of Hitlerite Germany and the battle for the Atlantic, which led to the landing in France), neither the destroyers nor the cruiser (the example of the death of the Japanese fleet after the Midway collapse with the loss of aircraft carriers).
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 14: 23 New
      0
      I respect anyone who reads and comments on the article - otherwise, without you guys, this would not make sense
      Quote: Mikola
      And most importantly, having missed the author, aircraft carriers decided the outcome of strategic battles instead of battleships as once.

      This is especially noticeable in the strategically important campaign in the Philippines (landing Leyte Gulf, etc.) - the Philippines were a source of oil for Japan and the japa were going to defend the islands to the last.

      Ozawa's aircraft carriers acted as bait - while heavy cruisers and battleships (the Nishimura squad and the Kurita sabotage squad) were supposed to slip into Leyte Bay and rip off an American landing (it’s easier to melt all transports with tens of thousands of soldiers)
      Quote: Mikola
      World War II showed that the strategic tasks are solved by aircraft carriers and not battleships, which determined the fate of the battleships

      Another fantasy.
      The strategic tasks are solved by the diverse forces of the fleet - aviation, submarines, landing transports, cruisers, destroyers, battleships
      Quote: Mikola
      The main strategic task of the fleet is to control the sea.

      Not only
      1. Delta
        Delta April 8 2013 21: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is especially noticeable in the strategically important campaign in the Philippines (landing Leyte Gulf, etc.) - the Philippines were a source of oil for Japan and the japa were going to defend the islands to the last.

        Ozawa's aircraft carriers acted as bait - while heavy cruisers and battleships (the Nishimura squad and the Kurita sabotage squad) were supposed to slip into Leyte Bay and rip off an American landing (it’s easier to melt all transports with tens of thousands of soldiers)

        Laughter and nothing else)))) On the aircraft carriers of Ozawa there were almost no planes and that is why they played the role of bait. The suicidal role and everyone understood this, but only for the reason that Japan was no longer able to provide herself with deck pilots. But I wonder what made such a powerful connection between Kurita and Nishimura if, as a result, only ONE escort aircraft carrier sank, while losing two or three (I do not remember exactly) heavy cruisers from those "useless" aircraft carriers?)))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 21: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          But I wonder what made such a powerful connection between Kurita and Nishimura if as a result only ONE escort aircraft carrier sank, while losing two or three (I do not remember exactly) heavy cruisers from those "useless" aircraft carriers?

          Kirita's pretty battered squadron ran into 500 aircraft
          Quote: Delta
          only ONE escort aircraft carrier sank

          Hurt everyone. Horseradish Japanese shells - punched escort ships right through, not having time to explode
          1. Delta
            Delta April 8 2013 22: 47 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Kirita's pretty battered squadron ran into 500 aircraft

            yeah, where did they come from? with "useless" aircraft carriers)))

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Hurt everyone. Horseradish Japanese shells - punched escort ships right through, not having time to explode

            and the point of damage? weak escort men could be sunk by spitting, but it didn’t work out. And about shells - a bad dancer ....
            1. Santa Fe
              April 9 2013 01: 42 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              yeah, where did they come from? with "useless" aircraft carriers)))

              The battle is often described as one-sided - a powerful force fell on almost defenseless escort aircraft carriers armed with a single 5 gun and guarded by 3 destroyers. But this is only part of the truth. ... When the Japanese ships began to maneuver in order to reduce the distance, they came under constant air attacks from more than 500 fighters armed with small bombs and torpedo bombers from the 77.4 og ships. But it's about equal to the striking power of Xnumx aircraft carrier squadrons! For almost 4 hours, Kurita tried to catch up with jeep carriers in the complete absence of air cover, and all this his ships were hit by many aircraft. Planes from escort aircraft carriers could land at Leyte airfields, refuel, arm there and attack the ships of Kurita again. therefore aircraft carriers did not have to adjust their maneuvers to take off and land aircraft.

              The first conclusion: if this happened in the open sea - cruisers would have been shot by escort soldiers. The aircraft carriers firmly helped the air base on about. Samar

              ... Taffy-3 destroyers put down a smoke curtain, partially covering the aircraft carriers. Then they did what the destroyers were building for and what their teams were teaching. The Hoel, Johnston, and Heermann launched a torpedo attack on the Northern Union. ... At a distance of 10000 yards, Johnston fired its 10 torpedoes, placed a smoke curtain and hid in it. In 6.27, one torpedo hit the Kumano, almost tearing off its nose.

              second conclusion: if it were not for the selfless actions of the destroyers, which put a smoke curtain and did not damage the "Kumano" and "Haguro" - the US Navy would have lost more than one escort. By the way, three American destroyers were killed.

              In the photo - "Gambier Bay" under the fire of Japanese battleships
              1. Santa Fe
                April 9 2013 02: 00 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                air base on about. Samar

                on Leyte Island of course
              2. Santa Fe
                April 9 2013 02: 03 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The aircraft carriers firmly helped the air base on about. Samar

                on Leyte Island of course
    2. Delta
      Delta April 8 2013 20: 38 New
      -1
      Quote: Mikola
      And most importantly, having missed the author, aircraft carriers decided the outcome of strategic battles instead of battleships as once. And artillery ships decided the outcome of tactical battles. World War II showed that the strategic tasks are solved by aircraft carriers and not battleships, which determined the fate of the battleships

      So you "author" and admits to something. He had just recently mentioned that under Midway aircraft carriers played their role and the most important role (actually, who else was playing there?), And now Midway took place without them)))) paranoia, not otherwise
  • misterwulf
    misterwulf April 8 2013 12: 37 New
    +1
    Hm! There is still an era of ekranoplanes-seaplanes of flying type "Albatross" or something more elaborate and more fun. :) And what? flew to the place of deployment. Desirable - squadron (or squadron, as it will be convenient). Refueled. Swam, let's go. We put up barriers. Avax reported the Achtung. Take off, flew 200 km in a few minutes (how many submarines do you need time for this?) Let's go. They fired (torpedoed) with missiles (torpedoes) and flew low and leisurely. They boarded the water after 2-3 thousand km. rearm, refuel. We flew in different directions. New squadron replenished - part returned, etc.

    A joke, of course, but an extremely unpleasant weapon for the enemy. And if you teach him to "sink" for a while, then it's generally fun! laughing
    Apparently, the question will continue to be in the full universalization of hybridization ...
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius April 8 2013 12: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: misterwulf
      extremely unpleasant weapons for the enemy.

      So far, the main enemy for ekranoplanes is the sea itself. These machines are competitors to airplanes, but not ships - they have no seaworthiness. Only in the Caspian Sea to calm and drive.
      1. misterwulf
        misterwulf April 8 2013 13: 23 New
        0
        Well, the meaning is understandable ... We must teach them to dive. Then learn to squeeze wings like in TU-160. Or fly to where it’s not storming laughing
        Work on something like this both here and in the USA was carried out 50 years ago, but it was not clear what led to it. So. As a concept.
        History shows that while the Achtung does not bite in one place, everyone uses the dash-than. Example -2MV. And there, over 5-6 years, a breakthrough in armaments, as in 50 years. Then, by inertia, progress continues for another 15 years, then again stagnation. It is still ongoing. In arsenal now everyone has what was developed in the 60s.
    2. sniper
      sniper April 8 2013 20: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: misterwulf
      Ahead is still the era of ekranoplanes-seaplanes of volatile
      What are you, what are you, dear ..... Under the Author, mention all sorts of godless Husa-Unicorns no way ... He does not love them even more than aircraft carriers ...
      1. Santa Fe
        April 8 2013 21: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: sniper
        He does not love them even more than aircraft carriers ...

        i was horrified by misterwulf fantasies wink
        1. sniper
          sniper April 8 2013 22: 33 New
          +1
          Hi Oleg ! Glad to see your work again !!! I'm really serious. drinks
  • postman
    postman April 8 2013 13: 15 New
    +2
    Aircraft carrier and battleship: changing of the guard
    Without even looking or reading the article, KNEW WHO AUTHOR.
    And I was not mistaken. The bottle of wine earned on a bet.
    tongue
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 13: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      And I was not mistaken. The bottle of wine earned on a bet.

      I did not know that the stakes are so high))
      1. postman
        postman April 8 2013 15: 04 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I did not know that the stakes are so high))

        Yes, the truth was crushed by KARoshoy tequila (more expensive in. Will be) ......
        Something is not clear, it seems to be carrying, a heavy plague, and there are no reserves ......
        ======================
        And as for the article: you don’t send notifications. There’s no garbage to read all, so there’s everything by name, in Google.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 18: 16 New
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Something is not clear, it seems to be carrying, a heavy plague, and there are no reserves ......

          soon have to go again))
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay April 8 2013 17: 19 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The fate of the Second World War was decided on the shore.
    The Germans and I had practically no sea battles, just as there were no battleships and aircraft carriers. There were not even heavy cruisers (Sheer’s single “raider campaigns” in the Arctic did not affect the overall picture).

    Self-propelled (high-speed?) Landing barge is the main character in the Black Sea (sorry, the picture did not attach - here is the address:
    http://sea-transport.ru/images/stories/main1/desantnaya%20barzha.JPG

    I had in mind not only the results of the USSR war against Germany, but also the US war with Japan and the northern convoys. And against the backdrop of all the sunken tonnage, the contribution of artillery ships was still very insignificant. Yes, and it was mainly at the initial stage of the war, or at a time when the Americans had one Enterprise left in the Pacific. At the second stage of the war, I think you will not find examples of artillery ship duels, except of course Scharnhorst. But this was an exception to the rule.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 18: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      .And against the background of the entire sunk tonnage, the contribution of artillery ships is still very insignificant.

      Here the undisputed leader is submarines.
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      In the second stage of the war, I think you will not find examples of artillery ship duels, except of course Scharnhorst

      powerful artillery battle in the strait of Surigao - 25 October 1944 g., the battleship "Yamashiro" sunk
  • ImPerts
    ImPerts April 8 2013 19: 21 New
    0
    In-in. There was already a good idea about dreadnoughts with aircraft carriers and submarines.
    Let's remember the evolution of tank building. Females, males, cavalry, light, heavy, etc. Now there is a single tank - the main battle tank.
    There was a fashion for battleships, then dreadnoughts, now aircraft carriers. But all this mod works subject to certain trends and pre-established rules of the game.
    And nobody canceled the asymmetric answer.
    There will be a fashion for aircraft carriers.
    And one hero will be replaced by another and stronger laughing
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 April 8 2013 19: 56 New
    +1
    As noted above, the development of the submarine fleet contributed to the disappearance of giant superlinkers - there is no point in increasing the thickness of the armor belt if a torpedo volley from an enemy nuclear submarine would still send the battleship to the bottom.


    The author of the noob was disgraced, the battleship has a fairly powerful anti-torpedo defense, and about an armored belt a rocket like the Exocet will simply crash without any special consequences for the ship. “North Carolina” was torpedoed, to no avail, “Yamato” and “Musashi”, the ships are very mediocre, sank only after receiving a huge number of hits.
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts April 8 2013 20: 54 New
      +1
      Exoset will not break? The weight of the RCC "Exoset" - from 650 to 870 kg. The speed of a flying rocket is 0,93 Mach or 1023 km / h (approximately). The mass of the shell of the B-37 gun (406 mm) is 310 kg, and the speed is 2980 km / h (approximately). The weight of RCC “Granite” is 7000 kg, and the speed is from 1,5 (above water) to Mach 2,5.
      Yes, and it makes sense to bathe with a penetration or 100% hit? The granite launched from Antey, equipped with warheads in the 500 CT and approximately in the area of ​​the AUG, will solve the problem of an aircraft carrier, aircraft wing, escort ships and (add the rest yourself))).
      1. Kars
        Kars April 8 2013 21: 43 New
        0
        Quote: ImPerts
        kzoset not break? Weight RCC "Exoset" - from 650 to 870 to

        Penetration -30 / 40 mm
        Quote: ImPerts
        the weight of the shell of the B-37 gun (406 mm) - 310 k

        What's so easy?
        Shell Types and Weights SAP - 2443 lbs. (1,108 kg)
        1915/28 AP models - 2443 lbs. (1,108 kg)
        1. ImPerts
          ImPerts April 8 2013 22: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          What's so easy?

          http://7132.ru/w/406-mm_morskaya_pushka_b-37_-_boepripasyi
          For what I bought ...
          Quote: Kars
          Penetration -30 / 40 mm

          And what is the difference between ship armor and tank? 30-40 mm?
          1. Kars
            Kars April 9 2013 00: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: ImPerts
            http://7132.ru/w/406-mm_morskaya_pushka_b-37_-_boepripasyi

            406 mm shell specifications
            Characteristic of an armor-piercing specimen of 1915/1928 semi-armor-piercing specimen of 1915/1928
            Weight, kg 1108 1108
            Charge weight, kg 310 310
            Explosive mass, kg 25,7 88,0
            Fuses MB MF
            Length mm 1908 2032

            The mass of the charge is the weight of the POWDER.
            Buy a little, you also need to read.
            Quote: ImPerts
            And what is the difference between ship armor and tank? 30-40 mm?

            The question is not how the rocket differs from an armor-piercing projectile.
            Also, think that a hardened steel core or a duralumin hollow ingot (hollow because the explosive density is very low does not exceed 2 g per cubic centimeter) has greater armor piercing.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 9 2013 00: 20 New
              0
              ____________________
            2. ImPerts
              ImPerts April 9 2013 07: 17 New
              0
              On
              Quote: Kars
              Buy a little, you also need to read.

              Not right, I agree.

              Quote: Kars
              Also, think that a hardened steel core or a duralumin hollow ingot (hollow because the explosive density is very low does not exceed 2 g per cubic centimeter) has greater armor piercing.

              And here I will not argue. And about the capabilities of the Granit RCC with nuclear warheads there will be objections?
              1. Kars
                Kars April 9 2013 13: 43 New
                0
                Quote: ImPerts
                RCC "Granite" with nuclear warhead objections will be?

                Regarding armor penetration?

                And I will advise you to read interesting material, the author is certainly an enthusiastic person, but there are rational thoughts.

                http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/indep.htm
                1. ImPerts
                  ImPerts April 9 2013 21: 37 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Regarding armor penetration?

                  Of course not.
                  Thanks for the link, read it.
                  All the same, the explosion power was 23 ct, not 500. The 1 explosion was airborne and did less damage than expected. But 2, the underwater, became much more destructive. And an important moment, all the ships were polluted and their further use became impossible.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 9 2013 23: 18 New
                    0
                    Quote: ImPerts
                    All the same, the explosion power was 23 kt, not 500

                    Well, it's not really, the progression is not geometric.
                    Quote: ImPerts
                    And an important moment, all the ships were polluted and their further use became impossible.

                    Who said? The fact that the crews then die is laid in the calculations.
                    Somewhere even the term Living Dead met.
                    1. ImPerts
                      ImPerts April 10 2013 08: 38 New
                      0
                      That is, to destroy the ACG or stop the fulfillment of its goal, an underwater (at a depth of 50-100 m) granite explosion from a nuclear warhead will not be enough? And not necessarily under the aircraft carrier, but about 500 m from it, nearby?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 10 2013 14: 24 New
                        0
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        underwater (at a depth of 50-100 m) explosion "Granite" with

                        And how do you blow granite under water?
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        and about 500 m from it, nearby?

                        Well, if it’s remote, then an air explosion will destroy the aircraft carrier
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        That is, to destroy the ACG or terminate the implementation of the set

                        But only the AUG is not only an aircraft carrier, cruisers and destroyers also have powerful offensive weapons.


                        And what is the point of using nuclear weapons against the AAG? This will lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike, so immediately Phushington and the Pentagon.
                      2. ImPerts
                        ImPerts April 10 2013 16: 32 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And how do you blow granite under water?

                        I understand that everything tends to the fact that the RCC are sharpened only when it hits specifically in the ship’s hull?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, and the point ... Fashington and the Pentagon.

                        It is truth too. But untracked and surviving AUGs will dominate the post-nuclear world.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars April 11 2013 13: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        I understand that everything tends to

                        I mean that they do not start up under water, and do not fly in. They just drown. And something hints to me that there is no hydrostatic fuse there, as well as it does, it will remain intact when it comes into contact with water at speed.
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        But untracked and surviving AUGs will dominate the post-nuclear world.

                        And where will they be secured? Replenish ammunition, especially guided ones, aviation gasoline, spare parts for aircraft. Negotiating what to dominate in the world with ... nuclear winter ... it’s still a pleasure.
                      4. ImPerts
                        ImPerts April 12 2013 21: 43 New
                        0
                        "The breakthrough of the enemy’s air defense" Vulkanu "facilitates the reservation of the warhead and important units, which reduces the likelihood of the destruction of anti-ship missiles by a close explosion of an anti-aircraft missile,
                        http://topwar.ru/9241-podvodnye-korabli-proekta-antey-poluchat-novoe-vooruzhenie
                        -raketnye-kompleksy-kalibr-i-oniks.html
                        Quote: Kars
                        And where will they be secured? Replenish ammunition, especially guided ones, aviation gasoline, spare parts for aircraft. Negotiating what to dominate in the world with ... nuclear winter ... it’s still a pleasure.

                        Do you really think that after the exchange there will be a complete wasteland? To capture the existing rocking chairs and oil refineries, surviving AUGs will be required. And the captain will become "king" if there is no coup. Such a postpunk. And not all warehouses will be destroyed.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars April 12 2013 21: 48 New
                        0
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        "booking the warhead and important components, which reduces the likelihood of the destruction of anti-ship missiles by close detonation of an anti-aircraft missile,"

                        Well, and where is the supply then? And protection from an anti-aircraft missile - a near detonation - of 10-12 steel millimeters.

                        And at the entrance to the water, an armor-piercing bullet of 12,7 is destroyed and in general it does not reach the bottom with a depth of 5 meters.
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        Do you really think that after the exchange there will be a complete wasteland?

                        AUG based locations are just like warehouses.
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        And the captain will become "king" if there is no coup

                        and fallout? man-made disasters? exploded nuclear power plants, throwing chemical plants))))
                      6. ImPerts
                        ImPerts April 12 2013 22: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, and where is the supply then? And protection from an anti-aircraft missile - a near detonation - of 10-12 steel millimeters.

                        I will not look, but somewhere it slipped about the semi-armor-piercing. That is, this is not a duralumin with kerosene and explosives.
                        And a salvo of 24 missiles will do the trick.
                        Quote: Kars
                        AUG-based locations are just like warehouses. And radioactive fallout? Man-made disasters? Exploded nuclear power plants, having thrown out chemical plants))))

                        In this regard, the film "Letters of a Dead Man" is recalled, more or less plausibly described. How many Nimitz floats before reloading? Xnumx years? So they will creak along the waves. What will be needed is water, food. And you can take gasoline and spare parts from the rest of the warehouses. And after 40 years, the countdown for a new civilization will begin))) A man will tie a piece of duralumin to a tree branch and begin to dig the earth in search of roots.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars April 13 2013 00: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        I will not look, but somewhere it slipped about the semi-armor-piercing. That is, this is not a duralumin with kerosene and explosives.

                        only warheads, and just 10-12 mm, especially when it comes to nuclear warheads, in a conventional stratum, but why drive it in?

                        Well, forget I have a regimen with dipping BCH?
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        Yes, and a volley of 24 missiles will do the trick

                        It may well be
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        How many Nimitz floats before reloading? 40 years?

                        Significantly less, while the repair of the reactor should be carried out in the conditions of the docks exactly more often.
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        And you can take gasoline and spare parts from the rest of the warehouses

                        Of course, it is precisely for aircraft carriers in those destroyed by strategic YaBs with a capacity of several MEGATONS of Newport, San Diego, Pearl Harbor
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        . And after 100 le

                        What about crew death from radiation? Radioactive dust, food contamination?
                      8. ImPerts
                        ImPerts April 13 2013 11: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, forget I have a regimen with dipping BCH?

                        Fair. I did not find about RCC. Search already and reluctance.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, it is precisely for aircraft carriers in strategic YBs destroyed

                        I do not think that everything is concentrated in these places. At a minimum, you can disassemble the aircraft and assemble one of two, three and ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        What about crew death from radiation? Radioactive dust, food contamination?

                        And this is not about them))) If the crew, then they would find shovels and axes on the ships))) This is about a rational person who finds artifacts of a former civilization, but uses them as he sees fit. Even in the modern world, the ability to use a reusable lighter does not imply an automatic ability to refuel it)))
                        Thanks so much for the discussion. I will not write here anymore.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars April 13 2013 14: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        I did not find about RCC. Search already and reluctance

                        And you will not find
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        I do not think that everything is concentrated in these places

                        If not in the places of basing, but in the depths of the continent (where I think there is no need to explain the warehouses at foreign bases) then consider those that are not there.
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        aircraft and collect one of two, three and ...

                        48 Hornets for a long time is not enough.

                        Quote: ImPerts
                        And this is not about them)))

                        This is about everyone
                        Quote: ImPerts
                        I will not write here anymore

                        as you wish
  • Gad
    Gad April 8 2013 21: 19 New
    +1
    I do not agree that the Yamato and Musashi were mediocre ships, on the contrary, they were in many respects masterpieces of military shipbuilding, I say as a shipbuilding engineer. You contradict yourself - indicating that they died after numerous hits, shows that they had phenomenal survivability, for example, Litorio sank from only 2 weak aircraft torpedoes. And the fact that the Japanese could not find these monsters to use is already their problem.
    Thanks to Oleg for the article, I completely agree that the actions of the battleships in WW2 did not deserve to go into the shadow of the "great and terrible" aircraft carriers.
  • Santa Fe
    April 8 2013 21: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Avenger711
    "North Carolina" torpedoed, zero sense

    Chronicle of the attack of the Navy Taranto, 12 November 1940

    Italian battleships were clearly visible. "Cavour" got hit 1 torpedoes, "Littorio" - 2. Then the second wave attacked. Her planes hit the 1 with a torpedo "Duilio", and another 2 went to the "Littorio", although one of them did not explode.

    All 3 battleships sank in their anchorage. Although Littorio and Duilio were later raised and repaired, they failed for the 5 and 6 months, respectively. The Cavour never went to sea again.

    Quote: Avenger711
    "Yamato" and "Musashi", the ships are very mediocre

    crying
    The largest battleships in the history of mankind, full in / and 70 thousand tons
    Quote: Avenger711
    drowned only after receiving a huge number of hits.

    It's not the same for everybody. “Barham" had three hits to detonate the ammunition
    Bismarck was smashed by one aviation torpedo
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas April 8 2013 20: 49 New
    +1
    Dear Oleg, I will agree with my comrades from above that the aircraft carrier did NOT replace the battleships, but replaced them. Yes, the USA used battleships after 2MB, but not in the quality for which they were originally intended. Yes, it was cheaper to shell targets on the coast with the main caliber, the benefit of shells from the time of 2MB remained decent. The aircraft carrier sees the enemy much further than the battleship, and the “arm” of the aircraft carrier is much longer, and there was no place for the battleship in the carrier’s escort, it could not perform anti-submarine functions as destroyers, it could not carry out reconnaissance missions like cruisers, and it was very expensive and demanded expensive infrastructure, in the sense of a basing requirement. With rare exceptions, post-war URO ships were built in the displacement of no more light cruisers, i.e. their biography was not from battleships, but from cruisers.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 8 2013 21: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      Dear Oleg, I will agree with my comrades from above that the aircraft carrier did NOT replace the battleships, but replaced them.


      naval artillery was seriously squeezed by aviation, not an aircraft carrier

      If 50 years ago, fragile Hellcat and Avengers still needed a floating airfield - modern F-15E and Su-34 can cross a thousand kilometers of space in an hour. In the ocean (I'm not talking about the coastal zone) there are no places where basic aviation could not reach.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 8 2013 21: 26 New
        +2
        “Modern F-15Es and Su-34s can cross a thousand kilometers of space in an hour. There are no places in the ocean (I’m not talking about the coastal zone) where basic aviation could not reach.” - on the one hand, yes. But there are a few BUT. It is possible to make such a flight for the crew, which was repeatedly confirmed, but very difficult, fatigue increases all kinds of risks. Next is the question of the number of sorties, 1000 km. from an air base in Italy or 100 km. from an aircraft carrier, to perform the same task, a different number of planes and crews + support planes will be required.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 21: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          1000 km. from an air base in Italy or 100 km. from an aircraft carrier

          Usually, you don’t even need 500 km - the US Air Force has more than 800 air bases on all continents

          Quote: Nayhas
          to perform the same task, a different number of planes and crews + support planes will be required.

          already considered. costs are minimal against the background of the construction and operation of one Nimitz (life cycle 40 billion, excluding air wing)
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 9 2013 07: 47 New
            0
            And how much does an air base cost in Italy or Germany? In addition to the cost of rent, salaries for employees of both their own and from local residents, for the provision of electricity, water, heating, food, fuel, equipment, ammunition, there are also political "expenses". It’s good if the air base is located in the country of the NATO bloc’s member country, otherwise you need to make a lot of approvals for the number of flights, for the transit of many cargoes, you need to grease local princes in order to get permission to organize this air base. As a result, the provision of one air base will come at the cost of providing an aircraft carrier, if not more. And how many issues do you have to solve with protesters that require the liquidation of the air base? This is good for the Americans, there is a lot of money, allies too, you can scatter 800 airbases around the world, and in our land the cat cried even in our own land, not to mention the whole world. How to protect the north and the Far East? Three airbases?
      2. Delta
        Delta April 8 2013 21: 30 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        naval artillery was seriously squeezed by aviation, not an aircraft carrier

        The entire command of the Japanese and American Navy - amateurs. Well, how else? after all, they believed in a completely different way that aircraft carriers did change everything else in the war at sea. And only Kaptsov of all admirals is smarter
        1. Santa Fe
          April 8 2013 21: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          after all, they thought it was completely different that aircraft carriers did change everything else in the war at sea

          really. Why built 12 useless battleships? - it would be better for these funds built 24 Essex

          and what for needed 850 destroyers? it would be better if instead they built fifty nominal aircraft carriers

          ps / during the war years the combat zones reached only 14 essexes - compare this with the number of battleships, cruisers and submarines that took part in the war
          1. Delta
            Delta April 8 2013 22: 52 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            really. Why built 12 useless battleships? - it would be better for these funds built 24 Essex

            personally, I never called either one useless. I always said that they quite successfully complemented each other. An example of this is the operational connection of the U.S. Navy since the forties. But the destroyers here drag in general does not make sense. They have their own tasks. So you can calculate corvettes, but why
          2. seafarer
            seafarer April 15 2013 03: 02 New
            0
            In addition to the Essexes, there were also lungs of AV Intrepid. In my opinion, they built 25 pieces. Plus about 200 escort jeeps.
            1. Santa Fe
              April 15 2013 13: 21 New
              0
              Quote: seafarer
              In addition to the Essexes, there were also lungs of AV Intrepid. In my opinion, they built 25 pieces. Plus about 200 escort jeeps.

              There were light aircraft carriers of the Independence type - 9 units, rebuilt from Cleveland-class cruisers (the Clevelands themselves built 27 units)

              Escort vehicles-jeeps built the order of 130. In any case, this is much less than the number of destroyers built (850) and submarines (200 +).

              Shock AV Interpid - a museum in New York (an aerospace museum - an aircraft carrier, aircraft of all countries and peoples - from MiG-17 and Kfir to SR-71 and deck vehicles, a submarine with the KR Regul, the Concorde airliner, the Space Shuttle), all this costs on the banks of the Hudson (right - Hudson) just opposite Times Square
  • ImPerts
    ImPerts April 8 2013 22: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Delta
    The entire command of the Japanese and American Navy - amateurs. Well, how else? after all, they believed in a completely different way that aircraft carriers did change everything else in the war at sea. And only Kaptsov of all admirals is smarter

    Time changes, fashion changes. There are still personal preferences of the country's leaders. At our place, Nikita Sergeyevich decided that rockets decide everything and everything ... Everyone else flew by.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 8 2013 22: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: ImPerts
      Time changes, fashion changes

      of course is changing. As you can see, until it has changed in the direction from aircraft carriers to gunboats))) in addition, I talked about WWII. And according to the statements of the participants in the battles of those years, the aircraft carrier replaced the undivided dominance of battleships. And it was justified, with the development of aviation
      1. ImPerts
        ImPerts April 8 2013 23: 37 New
        +1
        Who knows? When the gunboats will be able to secure their protection from flying objects. Missile weapons will become so universal that there will be no difference between an airplane or a coastal battery, then there will be no need for aircraft carriers. Or when the aircraft will be very fast and able to cover long distances in a short time, without damage to the combat load. But this is lyrics. As battleships, dreadnoughts, or aircraft carriers, these ships carry a greater role as an intimidating factor. What was the appearance of "Tirpitz" and the subsequent destruction of the caravan PQ-17. The lion's share of the caravan was sunk by submarines.
        In modern military conflicts, the main aviation is land aviation. Yes, if you destroy the air defense and ground infrastructure, then the air wing is able to suppress partisans and the remnants of resistance. Control the airspace, but no more.
  • family
    family tree April 9 2013 02: 04 New
    +1
    I myself am purely land, with water, only if I make a bridge, a sapper, that is, but father-in-law, he was a kingdom from heaven, I loved this song very much, he said that they told the whole truth in it drinks
    Friends leave, so sorry.
  • Rainger
    Rainger April 9 2013 10: 03 New
    0
    Stop comrades, but you didn’t forget about the Washington Conference ... Hence the imbalance and pathology of all ships of the year until 1936 and the subsequent ones too. No one interfered with aviation development.
    Further, I don’t agree with the author about the submarines: the volume of the sunk tonnage is not an indicator, the main thing is that there wasn’t much sense from the actions of the German submarines (they didn’t bring down sea trade and they themselves lost everything), it’s more complicated with Japan:
    1. The Japanese were preparing for a limited war with the Americans.
    2. The economic potential of Japan and the United States at that time, to put it mildly, is not comparable.
  • washi
    washi April 10 2013 06: 18 New
    0
    With advanced air defense aircraft carriers are useless. The remaining modern ships will not be able to approach the coast at a distance of art. shots.
    Ships with armor and artillery will still show their strength. It’s a pity that we cut them
  • seafarer
    seafarer April 15 2013 02: 19 New
    0
    The article is interesting. But I do not agree with the author. The aircraft carrier, as a weapon system, really became the main force in the ocean, displacing the dreadnoughts. Even all the examples of military clashes listed by the author in the Pacific theater of war only confirm this. All listed artillery battles: at the island of Savo, "Interception of the Tokyo Express in Vella Bay ..., night artillery duel at Cape Esperance, battle at Cape Lung, battle at Cape St. George (improving American radars by this time negated the Japanese advantage in night battles - the Imperial fleet lost dry). And, finally, enchanting pogrom in the Strait of Surigao " were exactly at night battles.
    And why? Yes, for a simple reason - the Japanese tried not to fall into the aviation coverage area in the daytime.
    At the same time, on October 5, 1944, OS 50.4 consisting of 2 AB Saratoga and Princeton + 2 air defense missiles and 10 electromagnetic strikes at Rabaul, where there are 7 TCR, 3 LCR and 14 EM. Result: 4 TCRs are severely damaged, 3 EMs are easily damaged, about 50 Japanese aircraft were shot down. The Americans lost 5 fighters and 5 bombers. Japanese ships left Rabaul and did not use it more as a fleet base.
    Well, the sinking of Yamato is generally a classic. The squadron, led by the most powerful artillery ship of all that ever existed, was sunk in less than an hour by an air group of 2 aircraft carriers.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 15 2013 13: 42 New
      0
      Quote: seafarer
      The aircraft carrier, as a weapon system, really became the main force in the ocean, displacing the dreadnought

      Dreadnoughts supplanted:
      1. aviation
      2. submarines

      AB - floating airfield, was needed 50 years ago. With the advent of jet aircraft, the need for it gradually disappeared.
      Quote: seafarer
      Result: 4 TKR severely damaged

      Artillery battle off the island of Savo - 4 cruisers sunk ...
      Quote: seafarer
      And why? Yes, for a simple reason - the Japanese tried not to fall into the aviation coverage area in the daytime.

      Then how to explain Night Battle Practice?
      As for the night artillery training, such firing on American battleships was practiced very intensively before the war and included several options: firing type "A" on pyramidal floating shields, and type "B" to repel a torpedo attack involving real destroyers, which at the same time practiced the ability to successfully carry out this attack. These tasks were usually intended for mine artillery. Shooting type "C" was carried out as 356-mm, and 127-mm guns, and together. At the same time, a lot of input on the sudden failure of various links of fire control systems - sights, rangefinders, etc., was worked out.
      During the shooting, many important problems were identified and solved. It is clear that the main one was the technique of highlighting the target. Some ships (their artillery officers) preferred the use of lighting shells, others preferred spotlights. Gradually, the view was strengthened that searchlights generally give the best result and the percentage of hits when using them doubled. In addition, providing a more stable backlight, they allowed to increase the effective rate of fire also approximately doubled.

      Quote: seafarer
      Well, the sinking of Yamato is generally a classic

      everything is not easy there
      Quote: seafarer
      ever existing was sunk in less than an hour by the 2's aircraft carriers.

      1. how many planes were there?))
      2. to create the required impact density, it took NINE floating airfields