Military Review

Why battleship, if there is an aircraft carrier?

135
Why battleship, if there is an aircraft carrier?



Fantastic progress in aviationobserved in the 20s of the last century made us take a fresh look at the role of the air force in armed conflicts. Aircraft confidently flew in the sky and led to victory. Some of the eccentric military theorists have already predicted the imminent disappearance of the classical armed forces - fiery rain from heaven can decide the outcome of any war.

It is not surprising that sailors became interested in a promising type of armed forces - a plane instead of an artillery gun ... why not? Carriers were rapidly gaining popularity - aviation turned out to be a formidable vehicle in the sea. The creators of cruisers and battleships began to fuss - the decks of the ships were decorated with dozens of barrels of anti-aircraft guns.

The situation seems to be obvious - the artillery ship is weak in front of the power of airplanes with well-trained crews. The combat radius of the aircraft is ten times greater than the range of the artillery. Probably, it was necessary to send as many forces as possible to build aircraft carrier ships?


Marine Parade in Spithead, UK, 1937 Year

However, nothing of the kind happened: even during World War II, the leading maritime powers continued the massive construction of super-battleships and cruisers: the British "King George V", the American "North Caroline", "South Dakota", "Iowa", the incredible the Japanese Yamato ... the number of built cruisers was generally counted in dozens of units - 14 Baltimor, 27 cruisers of the Cleveland type ... Do not forget the 1200 U-boats Kriegsmarine and 850 destroyers of the US Navy.

At present, a steady misconception has emerged that the main operating force in the Pacific theater was the carrier-based aircraft. One after another, absurd "proofs" of this theory emerge - for example, it suddenly turned out that cruisers, battleships and submarines were on "auxiliary roles", and aircraft carriers were responsible for "serious" strategic tasks.

Pearl Harbor, Midway, Doolittle Raid. Beautifully soaring plane, under the applause of the deck team - this image has little to do with the real war in the Pacific.
78 large-scale amphibious assault forces. Violent artillery duels at Savo Island and in the Surigao Strait, squadron battles, daily shelling of the coast, destroyer battles, deadly submarines, drowning everyone who stood in their way.

The famous Midway and the Battle of the Coral Sea are just rare exceptions when the situation depended on aircraft carriers. In all other cases (months-long porridge on Guadalcanal, the assault on Kwajalein, a meat grinder on Okinawa, etc.), operations were carried out by heterogeneous aviation forces and fleet, with the support of the Marine Corps and army units, using ersatz aerodromes and ground-based aircraft, maritime transport transports and auxiliary forces. Carriers are simply lost in the background of this power.

Only an aircraft carrier is capable of solving strategic tasks ... What a pity that Karl Doenitz, who sent hundreds of U-bots to the Atlantic every month, did not know about it. Their task was the most serious - the sea blockade of the British Isles. Lack of the simplest goods. Potatoes on the lawns of Buckingham Palace.
By the way, the task turned out to be unfulfilled and, in principle, impracticable - the forces of Kriegsmarine and the British and US Navy opposing them were too incommensurable.


Bunker for German submarines, Bordeaux

To prove this, I would like to have a brief overview of the two most enchanting legends. The first is “sinking by deck aircraft of the battleship Yamato in two hours.” The second история - “like six escort aircraft carriers beat the Japanese squadron”. With it, perhaps, let's start.

Fight off Samar Island, October 25 1944 of the year.

One of the strangest sea battles (however, every sea battle is a unique phenomenon) with an obvious correlation of forces and an unobvious, at first glance, ending. Americans are still perplexed, as a large Japanese squadron of 23 pennants was in the most vulnerable spot of the American fleet, in the landing zone in the Philippines. It seems that the deck aircraft of the US Navy, which is responsible for the control of maritime communications, stupidly "missed" the appearance of the enemy.

Early in the morning 25 of October, at the predawn hour, the anti-submarine patrol, taking off from the escort aircraft carrier “Saint Lo”, suddenly saw through the veil of rain pagodas of ship superstructures and the developing Japanese flag (“meat ball”, according to the American sailors). “Japanese!” - the pilot managed to breathe out only.

The next second, giant columns of water shot up between American escort aircraft carriers - the battleships Yamato, Nagato, Haruna, Congo, the cruisers Haguro, Tuka'i, Kumano, Suzuya, Tikuma, Tone, Yahagi and Noshiro, with the support of 11 destroyers, opened heavy storm artillery at the United States Navy. Good morning, America!

And then a touching story usually follows, as six small escort men run off the 16-knot move from the nasty Japanese battleships and cruisers, angrily snapping at their planes. In an unequal battle, the Gambier Bay escort aircraft carrier dies, the other five little heroes safely escape themselves and save the entire landing operation in the Philippines. The Japanese squadron loses three heavy cruisers and in disgrace falls on the opposite course. Happy end!

As the reader has already guessed, in reality everything was somewhat different. More precisely, everything was not the case at all.

Realizing that they were firmly “stuck”, the Americans used a combat trick unusual for them - self-sacrifice.

"The boys on my right shell put a curtain between the men and the enemy cruisers"

- Admiral of the United States Navy Clifton Sprague

The destroyers "Johnston", "Hoel", "Heerman" and the escort aircraft carrier "Samuel B. Roberts" set off to carry out a suicide order. Despite the fierce fire of the Japanese, small ships stubbornly crawled forward, closing the aircraft carrier with a saving veil.



However, the American destroyers were not passive targets for shooting at enemy guns. A clever fighting reversal - and each of the destroyers sends 10-torpedo salvo as a gift to the Japanese.
After a couple of minutes, the results became known: two torpedoes from the destroyer Johnston tore off the nose of the Japanese cruiser Kumano. A crippled ship stops chasing and disappears into a shroud of fog. One enemy less.

Trying to dodge released torpedoes, the Japanese cruisers and battleships break the line and cluelessly scatter across the surface of the sea. American aircraft carriers get a long respite.
The bold antics of the destroyers did not go unpunished - large-caliber Japanese shells smashed decks, burned battle posts and knocked out most of the crews.

... Something inarticulate hissed telephone communication, dying officers writhed in a blood-filled wheelhouse. From the stem to the archteck, all the decks were littered with debris, flames leaked from the torn-out hull ... and yet, the guns of the destroyer-destroyers regularly sent a shell after the projectile toward the Japanese squadron. The surviving commanders handed ammunition to the gun trays, and somewhere deep inside the hull the Mk.37 computer fire control system buzzed, continuously counting the position of the Japanese ships, automatically deploying guns according to the only accidental radar.


Mark I Fire Control Computer. Weight 1363 kg. There are no electronic chips in the analog computer, but there are gyroscopes, relays and the most accurate mechanics.

The unique fire control system brought its results - except for two torpedoes, the destroyer “Johnston” threw 45 five-inch shells into the heavy cruiser “Kumano”, defeating the entire superstructure, along with radars, anti-aircraft guns and rangefinder posts, and then fed the Konkor battleship with shells .

The destroyers "Samuel B. Roberts" and "Heerman" brought down a surgically precise fire on the cruiser "Tikuma". For half an hour of the battle, "Samuel B. Roberts" shot his entire ammunition at the enemy - 600 five-inch ammunition. As a result, three of the four main-caliber towers on the "Tikume" failed, the navigating bridge collapsed and the communication and fire control systems failed.

But the artillerymen of the Kalinin Bay escort aircraft carrier, a well-aimed shot from a single 127 mm gun, hit the torpedo unit of the Chokai cruiser, and the monstrous explosion turned the body inside out. A few minutes later the burning cruiser finished off the deck aircraft.

In total, the Japanese lost three heavy cruisers in that battle, three more ships were seriously damaged.
Official losses of the US Navy: Gambier Bay escort aircraft carrier and three destroyers (one of which is an escort), 23 aircraft and 1583 people dead and missing.


Escort aircraft carrier "Gumbier Bay" under fire from Japanese cruisers

The following are the reasons for the unexpected victory of the US Navy:

1. Skillful and courageous actions of the destroyers who delayed the Japanese squadron at the cost of their death.

2. The Japanese ships came under concentrated attacks from more than 500 carrier-based aircraft - cars from the whole region flew to help six escort aircraft carriers. The aerial group of Americans was equal in power to the FIVE strike aircraft carriers.
Surprisingly, in the current favorable situation, the Americans managed to sink only three cruisers - the rest of the Japanese squadron safely left the battlefield and returned to Japan, including the Kumano with its nose cut off.

3. But that's not all! The third important circumstance is the air base on the island of Leyte. "Deck" aircraft refueled, replenished ammunition and again returned to sea to attack the Japanese squadron. As a result, escort aircraft carriers were not required to adjust their course to the wind and provide take-off and landing operations - otherwise, it would be unrealistic to run away from cruisers and battleships.

4. Classic. Japanese shells. Intended for the destruction of armored targets, they pierced the tin sides of escorts through, like a sheet of plywood. The aircraft carrier Kalinin Bay received 12 direct hits with 203 mm projectiles and by the end of the battle was a leaky sieve. It should be noted that whether real Essex-type aircraft carriers were in the place of the escort, the combat score of the Japanese could be replenished with six trophies at once. The 37 ... 64 mm thick armor-shell was clearly not enough to stop the 8-inch projectile, but it was enough to activate its fuse and turn the ship into fiery hell.

These are the comments about the battle of the island of Samar. Does this look like a legend about how “escort aircraft carriers drove Japanese battleships into tail and mane”?

The last trip "Yamato"

Death from on high was his fate,
Traces of torpedoes.
Black from the aircraft
Sky.
The Iron Giant
Fell before the depth
Debt by doing.




The essence of events: 6 April 1945, the largest battleship in maritime history - the Yamato super-ship, accompanied by the light cruiser Yahagi and eight destroyers, left Kure with the mission to break through to the island of Okinawa. Fuel was only enough at one end - when approaching the island, the sailors intended to flood the battleship in the shallows and turn it into an invincible artillery battery.

It is fair to admit that Yamato had practically no chance - at that moment a group of 1000 US Navy warships, including 5 dozens of aircraft carriers, maneuvered off the coast of Okinawa. We couldn’t talk about any secrecy - the situation on the Navy Kure was carefully monitored by high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft based on B-29.

A day later, on April 7, the squadron was sunk by deck aircraft of the US Navy. The largest ship of World War II was torn to pieces in just 2 hours. The Japanese lost 3000 people. Americans -10 aircraft and 12 pilots.
Is this not proof of the unimaginable power of carrier-based aviation capable of cracking down on any naval enemy?
It turns out, no.

Some notes to the death of the battleship:

1. "Yamato" was burning 58-e operational connection of the US Navy. Behind a completely everyday name lies the most powerful squadron, from the ever surfing the ocean. Attack aircraft carriers "Essex", "Hornet", "Hancock", "Bunker Hill", "Bennington", light aircraft carriers "Bellow Wood", "San Jacinto" and "Bataan" ... total 11 aircraft carriers under the cover of high-speed battleships "Missouri" , New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, two battle cruisers Alaska, Guam, five light cruisers and 21 destroyer.

The wings of eight aircraft carriers participated in the attacks on the Yamato.

Eight against one! Scientifically speaking, the experiment was conducted incorrectly. The balance of the interacting components was disturbed, the number of American aircraft carriers exceeded all reasonable limits. Therefore, the results of the experiment can not be considered reliable.


Position of the Yamato wreckage on the ground


2. However, there is an assumption that the minimum required number of aircraft carriers is not too different from reality. Effective air strike must be massive. To ensure the required density of attacking aircraft, a lot of runways are required - after all, those who have already taken to the air are not able to wait a whole hour for those who are on the deck. Fuel reserve is strictly limited. Because 8 aircraft carriers were able to form a shock group "only" of 227 machines.

In addition, it is worth considering that not all the planes of those years could reach the goal - in order to get a strike group of 227 planes over the target, the Americans had to lift 280 machines into the air - 53 got lost from the planes and did not find the target.

3. The rapid death of the Yamato is not a sufficient criterion for asserting the weakness of artillery ships before air attacks.
By the end of the war, Japan was seriously lagging behind in the development of fire control systems - the Japanese sailors had nothing like the MK.37 or the Ford Mk.I Fire Control Computer.


American anti-aircraft missile with a radar fuse.
The main know-how was the radio tubes capable of withstanding the overload of 20 000 g when fired from a cannon

Whether Japanese have computers for anti-aircraft fire control, Mk.12 five-inch anti-aircraft guns, automatic 40 mm Bofors guns, small-caliber Erlikons with power feed and projectiles with Mk.53 radar fuse (all of which was on a Mk.XNUMX radar (all that was on the rack, Mk.XNUMX) (all of which was on the radar Mk.XNUMX) (all of which was on the radar Mk.XNUMX (all of which was on the radar Mk.XNUMX) (all that was on the radar Mk.XNUMX (all that was on the radar) US Navy ships) - I fear that Yamato would have interrupted American aircraft, like a flock of bird flu, and died in an "honest" artillery battle with six American battleships.

4. The weakness of the Yamato air defense system is not only due to technical reasons. It is usually not mentioned that the Japanese anti-aircraft gunners, trite, did not know how to shoot.
For anti-aircraft gunners need training - American sailors trained in shooting a towed cone. The Japanese did not have enough fuel even for combat missions - as a result, the Yamato anti-aircraft calculations were practiced on air beds. Frankly speaking, a bad simulator is in terms when the speed of the aircraft exceeded 600-700 km / h.


Carriers 58 th operational connection. How many of them are required for drowning lonely “Yamato”? And if instead of "Yamato" was a ship like the "Iowa"?

There are still a few “trifles” that in one way or another influenced the quick death of the ship: for example, the lack of the required amount of fuel - as a result, Yamato was forced to turn off part of the boilers and reduce speed. Or the American submarines "Tredfin" and "Heklbek", discovered the squadron "Yamato" at night when leaving the Kure base and promptly warned about this aircraft carrier.

Considering all the above, the “reference” sinking of the Yamato turns into a story with ordinary beatings with full quantitative and qualitative superiority. However, the Americans know about it better than we are with you - the suspiciously rapid death of the Japanese super-battleship has never been given much importance.

He accepted death
Hope not thaw.
For the emperor,
In the name of Fleet honor.
Admiral's Shadow
I waited for him.
In the last turn
Towers - farewell.
Goodbye,
Nobody defeated knight.
Let your body
Tormented by explosives
Lies at the bottom
But today, there,
Where soared above the waves
Funeral smoke column -
The golden flower is burning,
On the ghost metal.

/ Felix Brenner "To the death of Yamato" /




Sources:
Dall S. Fighting Path of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Theodore Roscoe. Stronger than the "divine wind." Destroyers of the USA. War in the Pacific
www.navweaps.com
www.warfleet.ru
Author:
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andy
    Andy April 24 2013 09: 19 New
    +4
    "The attacks on the Yamato involved air wings of eight aircraft carriers.
    Therefore, the results of the experiment cannot be considered reliable. "But the author believes the result of using a squadron of 23 pennants against six small escort aircraft carriers is credible. And then he complains about the disproportionate use of force -" Japanese ships came under concentrated attacks from more than 500 deck aircraft - to help six escort aircraft carriers flocked cars from all around. "The air group of the Americans was equal in power to FIVE strike aircraft carriers."

    so we have a huge fleet against the air army. total- "In total, the Japanese lost three heavy cruisers, three more ships were seriously damaged.
    Official losses of the US Navy: Gambier Bay escort aircraft carrier and three destroyers (one of which is an escort), 23 aircraft. "
    1. Civil
      Civil April 24 2013 11: 27 New
      +1
      then the Japanese should not have climbed into the war at all ... that is not there .. this is not
    2. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 11: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Andy
      but the author considers the result of using the squadron in 23 pennant reliable against six small escort aircraft carriers

      Andy, in reality there were far from six of them)))

      500 vehicles flocked to the scene from all battle groups in the area, including from the airfields of Leyte Island - it’s strange that they didn’t drown
      + effective actions of destroyers that sacrificed themselves for escort

      500 aircraft - more than 10 air regiments, sunk a total of 1 cruiser. Somehow weak
      1. Andy
        Andy April 24 2013 14: 31 New
        -1
        flying time from all directions unaccounted for? + Amers threw even machine-gun fighters to attack the ships. How many of those 500 aircraft were unable to harm the ship? Finally, to sink a large ship in motion was not so simple. the only moment missed the approach of the Japanese. from that I had to drop everything in order to distract. and emergency measures are always less effective. and then 500 planes for 23 ships = 21 with a penny per ship.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 24 2013 18: 48 New
        0
        500 planes at a time? no. all torpedo bombers? no
        1. Santa Fe
          April 24 2013 21: 47 New
          -1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Xnumx aircraft at the same time?

          within two hours

          ~ 500 aircraft took part in the battle.
          how many sorties they made ... it's hard to say.
          after the attack by Japanese ships, the planes returned to Leyte airfields, refueled, replenished b / c and it all started all over again
          Quote: Tlauicol
          all torpedo bombers? not

          bombers, torpedo bombers Avenger, fighters
          the joke is that they practically did not have torpedoes and large-caliber bombs (escort soldiers were not planned to be used in naval combat). therefore, the outcome of the battle at Samar Island was decided by destroyers
      3. Vadivak
        Vadivak April 24 2013 20: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Johnston dropped 45 five-inch shells into the Kumano heavy cruiser, defeating the entire superstructure, along with radars, anti-aircraft guns and rangefinder posts, and then fed the shells the Congo battleship. with


        What can I say, bow. I read and excitement appears as a kid, although in his youth such a glory of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, there was nowhere to read
    3. cdrt
      cdrt April 26 2013 16: 02 New
      +1
      The author has simply amazing perseverance in proving the uselessness of aircraft carriers wink
      After all, the fact that in battle everything is concentrated against one is the only correct method of waging a war wink
      And about the difficulties with opening the developed anti-aircraft defense of the ship’s connection - I remember a book - about the actions of the Brinan naval aviation (coastal), the tactics of attack of a very protected convoy were described very well there, 40 minutes and as it never happened.
  2. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 24 2013 09: 49 New
    +3
    The battle at Samar Island only confirms the claim that battleships against aircraft carriers are ineffective. If the Japanese in the squadron of a couple of aircraft carriers, the fate of American escort ships would be sad. The main reason why the Japanese battleships and cruisers could not sink the Americans was because the aircraft did not allow aimed fire, if there was air cover, the Japanese aircraft would not allow the Americans to organize an organized attack on ships.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 24 2013 10: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      if the Japanese in the squadron of a couple of aircraft carriers, the fate of American escort ships would be sad


      Really? Against 500 planes? A couple of aircraft carriers would be added to the Japanese losses. And they would have at least a chance to return to the base like the same Kumano. After two torreds and a couple of dozens of shells. Yankees such air groups clicked like seeds.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 24 2013 12: 13 New
        +1
        500 planes did not immediately enter the battle, moreover, the factor of surprise could be greater if Japanese fighters intercepted the scout. After all, the first minutes of the battle would have decided, if the Japanese approached a distance allowing them to shoot aircraft carriers, the outcome would have been different, and so the attack of the destroyers and planes forced the Japanese squadron to maneuver changing course, reducing the approach speed allowing the American aircraft carriers to go to a safe distance, albeit having lost one aircraft carrier ...
        1. Kars
          Kars April 24 2013 12: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          fighters would intercept the scout.

          Submarines found them, and even drowned the flagship. This is not to mention that the US planes are equipped with radio stations, and he would report on the presence of Japanese planes.
          Quote: Nayhas
          500 planes didn’t immediately enter the battle,

          if you don’t take it right away, then in total in that area the Yankees had 1200 aircraft, including katalin.
          Quote: Nayhas
          After all, the first minutes of the battle would have been decided if the Japanese approached a distance allowing them to shoot aircraft carriers

          and so they jumped on this distance, and the reconnaissance planes did not help the Yankees.

          Quote: Nayhas
          as well as the attack of destroyers and aircraft

          Destroyers, on escort ships driven to attack ground targets, there were no heavy bombs and torpedoes.
          Quote: Nayhas
          retreat to a safe distance even if you lose one aircraft carrier ...

          the Japanese themselves stopped the persecution and turned away.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 24 2013 15: 03 New
            0
            Yes, I got confused with the detection. But only thanks to aviation, the aircraft carriers survived, without it, no one would have left.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 24 2013 15: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: Nayhas
              But only thanks to aviation did the aircraft carriers survive

              The aircraft carriers survived only thanks to tsushima - after which the japes began to use fuses with great slowdown. Well, and bathing from the submarine of the Japanese admiral, who made mistakes in frustration and stress.
    2. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 11: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      The main reason why the Japanese battleships and cruisers could not sink the Americans is because the aircraft didn’t allow aimed fire,

      That is, the destroyers died in vain?

      Haruna evaded all of them, but Yamato was bracketed between two of Heermann's torpedoes on parallel courses, and for 10 minutes was forced to head north away from the action. Admiral Kurita and his best weapon was temporarily out of the battle.

      Two torpedoes from the Heerman clamped Yamato, forcing him to turn away to the North. The best Japanese weapons were removed from battle
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 24 2013 12: 15 New
        +1
        Without the help of aviation, the fate of the destroyers would have been a foregone conclusion, and they would not have been allowed to reach a torpedo salvo.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 24 2013 12: 26 New
          -1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Without the help of aviation, the fate of the destroyers would have been a foregone conclusion, and they would not have been allowed to reach a torpedo salvo.

          Oh really?))
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 24 2013 14: 41 New
            +3
            If the effectiveness of the destroyers would be as high in the absence of support from the air, then why battleships and cruisers? It turns out five battleships including such as Yamato and Musashi, ten cruisers and 11 destroyers could not repel the attack of seven destroyers?
        2. Raven1972
          Raven1972 April 24 2013 13: 19 New
          0
          And what do you think is the distance of torpedo firing? )))))
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 24 2013 14: 18 New
            0
            25 cable, for maximum torpedo travel, Yamato mine artillery fired at 147 cable. Those. approaching a torpedo salvo is more than risky.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 24 2013 15: 32 New
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              25 cable, for maximum torpedo travel


              Mod 0
              6,000 yards (5,500 m) / 45 knots
              10,000 yards (9.150 m) / 33.5 knots
              15,000 yards (13,700 m) / 26.5 knots
              Mod 3
              4,500 yards (4,100 m) / 45 knots
              9,000 yards (8,200 m) / 33.5 knots
              14,000 yards (12,800 m) / 26.5 knots
              Quote: Nayhas
              ten cruisers and 11 destroyers failed to repel the attack of seven destroyers?

              Read about torpedo battles of the Pacific War, very entertaining stories.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 24 2013 22: 59 New
                +1
                You don’t quite understand that the torpedo Mk.15 used the destroyers with a maximum range of 74 cables and this is at a speed of 26,5 knots. Those. before the shot, the miner set speed on a dashboard. It was pointless to set such a speed on a warship, it’s a fire to transport vehicles with neither speed nor maneuverability, so they set a maximum of 45 knots. 155mm Yamato mine artillery. shot at 148 cables, there were six of them on Yamato in two three-gun towers firing on both sides, besides 127 mm. universal guns in the amount of 24 pcs. in 12 two-gun towers, six towers on board with a range of 80 cables. If it weren’t for US aviation, universal artillery would have been involved in the destruction of destroyers, then they certainly would have had no chance.
  3. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 24 2013 10: 53 New
    +2
    An aircraft carrier in fresh weather turns into a simple transport.
  4. Santa Fe
    April 24 2013 11: 07 New
    +5
    About how strategic tasks are solved:

    Landing in Normandy:


    Landing in Okinawa:
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 April 24 2013 11: 48 New
      +5
      With “Overlord” an example is not too successful. Allies even before the start of the operation had air superiority. Otherwise, they would not have been able to carry out massive bombing of Germany and the territories it occupied. With the start of the operation, the superiority of allied aviation became overwhelming ...
      And then there's Misty Albion nearby. So there is no need for aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft ...
      1. Kars
        Kars April 24 2013 11: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: Chicot 1
        airborne supremacy

        Quote: Chicot 1
        there is also Misty Albion nearby

        Quote: Chicot 1
        there is no need for aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft


        But the artillery ships for that vast air superiority for some reason involved.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 24 2013 12: 22 New
          +3
          Why not use them? But at the same time, who made the adjustment? Aircraft, without it, aiming firing from a ship can only be done along the coast, but targets located in the depths from the rangefinding posts of the ships are not visible. And there are precisely those goals that interfere with the landing, enemy artillery.
          1. Kars
            Kars April 24 2013 12: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            And there are precisely those targets that interfere with the landing, enemy artillery

            Art marchers taken away from marines?
        2. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 April 24 2013 12: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: Kars
          But artillery ships for that vast air superiority for some reason involved

          And they did it right. Excess barrel during the landing operation is not a hindrance ... True, the landing was still nearly failed. Then they themselves were even surprised at what was going on (read M. Hastings "Operation Overlord") ...
          But the point is, in general, not that, but that if Albion were much further away and the range of land planes would not be enough to ensure their normal combat work, then the Allies would use the aircraft carriers a priori. As an example - the fighting in the Pacific theater of operations. And there it was impossible to fight without aircraft carriers. Even with battleships ...
          1. Kars
            Kars April 24 2013 16: 51 New
            0
            Quote: Chicot 1
            oh the allies would have involved aircraft carriers a priori

            Most likely then the tower would have failed, the Germans did not have such a concrete deficit as the Japanese on the islands. And there the coast was worked for weeks.
          2. Avenger711
            Avenger711 April 24 2013 19: 04 New
            0
            Something I did not notice in this book of such moods that someone there was surprised.
      2. Santa Fe
        April 24 2013 12: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Chicot 1
        So there is no need for aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft ...

        Chikot, as you may have noticed, this is not just about aircraft carriers and cruisers.
        Overlord means hundreds of landing craft, transports, tankers, destroyers, etc.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 April 24 2013 14: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Chikot, as you may have noticed, this is not just about aircraft carriers and cruisers.
          Overlord means hundreds of landing craft, transports, tankers, destroyers, etc.

          I know. And hundreds of aircraft for various purposes that covered this armada from the air. And dozens of saboteurs who carried out clearing in the landing zones ...
          But in this case, we are talking about the exact delivery of aircraft carriers to battleships (or vice versa). And I did not begin to oppose them ...
    2. Alex
      Alex 22 September 2013 13: 48 New
      +2
      Airships are especially impressive for their power ...
  5. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil April 24 2013 11: 16 New
    +1
    The Japanese lost the war on December 7, 1941, when there were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor, the overwhelming superiority of the United States over Japan, Germany and Italy combined did not give Japan any chance of victory, even if all the US aircraft carriers were sunk in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese would have received only temporary advantage because the Americans would quickly build up a bunch of new ones, which they did in the end. The entire company after Pearl Harbor in the Pacific was reduced to the search for and destruction of exactly the aircraft carriers that were sunk and the capture of the aircraft carriers that were unsinkable and also help to China, which turned out to be for Japan, like Spain, for Napoleon .Americans just had to get a bridgehead for air raids on the Japanese islands, which they would bomb in the Stone Age, and if they had had nuclear weapons, they would have “tested” them on the Japanese, which they did. And this is what the Japanese had to do to get the US out of the war I do not know.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 11: 32 New
      +6
      Quote: Standard Oil
      The Japanese lost the 7 war of December 1941, when there were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor

      One of the "urban legends"
      What would the loss of "Enterprise" and "Lexington" give if the Yankees built an attack aircraft carrier during the war years 31 (half of them did not even have to participate in battles)

      However, the loss of 4's old pelvis from the First World War (Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California) also gave the Japanese nothing - a couple of years later the Yankees built 10 with the latest Iowes and South Dakot , each of which was equal in strength to the two old "Arizona"

      Pearl Harbor is a poorly planned operation. Not a single bomb fell on:

      - The giant dock 10 / 10 for the repair of battleships and aircraft carriers;

      - Workshops and electric power - this allowed the Yankees to begin restoration work within an hour after the raid;

      - 4 million barrels of oil. The Japanese did not touch the giant US Navy oil tank - fuel reserves at Pearl Harbor exceeded all Japanese reserves. All these valiant deck pilots gave the Americans!

      * The old battleships “California” and “V. Virginia” were raised, restored and modernized by the year 1944. Another damaged battleship - "Nevada" was taken aground and returned to combat duty by the summer of 1942
      1. Santa Fe
        April 24 2013 11: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        a couple of years later, the Yankees built 10 with the latest Iow and South Dakot

        4 Iowa
        4 South Dakota
        Xnumx Alaska
      2. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil April 24 2013 11: 59 New
        +2
        Japan lost, in any case, even drowning Pearl Harbor at sea, I’m talking about aircraft carriers to the fact that their destruction should have been the main goal of the Japanese in order to get at least the illusive hope that the Americans at least talk to them about the world .And seeing. that there are no aircraft carriers in the harbor, the Japanese had to pretend that they got lost and fly away and forget about the war with the United States as a terrible dream.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 24 2013 12: 34 New
          +3
          I once developed an alternative to landing on Pearl. And all that broke it was the art of the battery of Americans, the japs ​​with their forces lacked the power to crush them, even with 6 aircraft carriers. And they left the battleships far behind.
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 24 2013 12: 39 New
        +2
        Well, the actions of Japan in December 1941. generally devoid of logic. It was not clear what the calculation was, if they wanted to destroy the naval forces in Hawaii, then the operation, except for the air raid, should have been accompanied by a landing. Now, of course, it is easy to argue from the height of the past years, but in my opinion then it was also obvious. What would give the destruction of even all the ships in Pearl Harbor? The US military industry is not affected, there are enough resources ... It's like with the Nazis' intentions to defeat the spacecraft before the winter, which is why they did not prepare for winter. But the defeat of the spacecraft does not cancel the winter, therefore, the Nazi intentions are frankly idiotic.
        1. Gato
          Gato April 24 2013 17: 01 New
          +1
          It seems to me that the actions of Japan were not without a certain logic. The chain seems to be like this:
          1. Japan has industry, but there is no raw material in the metropolis, and most importantly, oil.
          2. But Japan has a strong army, aviation and the third most powerful fleet in the world.
          3. It is precisely for resources that Japan is waging war in China, which the United States really dislikes, because the Americans also need China.
          4. America stops the supply of oil and other resources, and without them, Japan will last a maximum of 4-6 months. So it is necessary to fight anyway.
          5. There is oil and resources in the south, and in order to gain access to them one must at least temporarily neutralize the American fleet with a shocking blow in the hope that the Americans will not want to get into a serious war.

          By and large, the blow came out, but thanks to Roosevelt's ardent desire and the forces behind him to end the policy of isolationism, America got seriously involved in the war both in the Pacific Ocean and in Europe.
          It is hard to believe that the Japanese did not imagine the industrial power of America, but they were simply forced to attack, there was no other way.
          1. Alex
            Alex 22 September 2013 14: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: Gato
            we must at least temporarily neutralize the American fleet with a shocking blow in the hope that the Americans will not want to get into a serious war.

            The keywords here are TEMPORARY and HOPE, which refers more to the field of divination on coffee grounds than to sober calculation.

            Quote: Gato
            so you have to fight anyway.
            but they were simply forced to attack, there was no other way.

            Well, why, you can just pacify pride and ask for forgiveness. Sometimes it rolls in children, in Japan, too, I think it would work out. But then what would Roosevelt come up with in order to intervene in the war, but with the resistance of the isolationists, I can’t imagine.
    2. Hemi cuda
      Hemi cuda April 24 2013 12: 54 New
      +1
      It would be most reasonable for Japan not to start a war, but they wanted to know the outcome of the war.
  6. SIT
    SIT April 24 2013 11: 28 New
    +2
    Gatling's system was developed in the 19th century. Nothing prevented putting it on an electric drive in the 30s, and not in the 60s, and then all the pilots of the naval aviation of the 2nd world would be transferred to the category of kamikaze. Two six-barrel 20mm blocks in one tower would occupy a size smaller than six-inch guns. On such a huge piece of steel as Yamato they could be put in unmeasured. Combine them into a single control of an analog guidance system. At a speed of 300–350 km / h dive fly over a battleship, where only one tower with twin units gives out 6000 rounds per minute of pure suicide.
    1. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 24 2013 12: 23 New
      0
      Without SLA and radar, it’s useless as a goat’s milk.
      Quote: SIT
      On such a huge piece of steel as Yamato they could be put in unmeasured. Combine them into a single control of an analog guidance system.

      The Japanese didn’t even just have an MSA for MZA, what are you aiming for?
      Quote: SIT
      speed dive in 300 - 350km / h

      more
      1. SIT
        SIT April 24 2013 13: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: Wasserfall
        more

        The Dauntless has a cruising 298, maximum 410 at an altitude of 3km. The newer Helldiver 287 and 467, respectively. Speed ​​stall after bulging your nose finally 143. Substitute on this under 6000 rounds per minute?
        Here is the lack of SLAs associated with the radar and the central computer really makes Japanese monsters just pieces of iron.
        1. Waterfall
          Waterfall April 24 2013 19: 01 New
          0
          The reach of the volcano-phalanx is such that you have to work on diving targets.
  7. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 April 24 2013 12: 07 New
    +7
    "Theory, my friend is dry, and the tree of life turns green"... (replica of Mephistopheles) "Faust", Goethe

    Whether the results of the American carrier-based aircraft attack on the Yamato can be reliable (or in other words “correct”) or not, it already belongs (forgive me, dear Author for directness) to the field of theory (and this is in the best case) , or even just idle reasoning. For the result of this attack on the face is “Yamato” at the bottom. Bismarck and Tirpitz too. There are no battleships in any Navy. All were either scrapped or became museums on their own. And this is also a fact. And, like all other facts, he is just as stubborn to form disgrace ...
    But the carriers so far are not going to rest however. And it was not me who invented it. This life has ordered it so ...

    PS Dear Oleg, I always with great and genuine interest read the articles that you publish here on the site. Good and informative articles ... But by golly, stop throwing yourself to extremes in the topic "aircraft carrier vs battleship". For in essence all this confrontation does not take place in the plane of “aircraft carrier against artillery ships”, but in the plane of “aircraft against surface ship”. But where does this aircraft take off (from land airports or from the deck) the second question ...
    Thank you in advance for your understanding ... smile
    1. Gato
      Gato April 24 2013 15: 26 New
      +3
      the confrontation does not take place in the plane “aircraft carrier against artillery ships”, but in the plane “aircraft against surface ship”

      Exactly! In this regard, it would be worth considering the forerunner of Pearl Harbor - the Swordfish attack on Taranto, and even more so the Japanese drowning the “Prince of Wales” and “Ripals”. The consequences of the latter can hardly be called strategic:
      From a British perspective, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Ripals had immediate and dire consequences. The morale of the defenders of Malaya and Singapore was undermined. The fate of all our possessions in Southeast Asia was a foregone conclusion. It is rare that when a defeat at sea had such far-reaching consequences.
      - Roskill, S.W. Flag of St. George. English fleet in the second world war
    2. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 22: 42 New
      -2
      Quote: Chicot 1
      or even just idle reasoning. For the result of this attack on the face is “Yamato” at the bottom.

      The results of events usually lead to conclusions?
      But what conclusions can be drawn from the sinking of the Yamato? What is required for the guaranteed sinking of one battleship with primitive air defense 8 aircraft carriers?
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Bismarck and Tirpitz too.

      So what?
      Together with Bismarck went to the bottom of HMS Hood
      Together with Tirpicz went to the bottom of the convoy PQ-17
      Quote: Chicot 1
      For in essence all this confrontation does not take place in the plane of “aircraft carrier against artillery ships”, but in the plane of “aircraft against surface ship”.

      Regarding WWII: the importance of deck aviation is disproportionately significant
      In modern times, the question is: why do we need a super-floating airfield if the legs of the US Air Force can reach anywhere in the World Ocean
      Quote: Chicot 1
      But the carriers so far are not going to rest however. And it was not me who invented it. This life has ordered it so ...

      Life has ordered that all American Avs rust at the base. And the fleet is fighting by other means.
      Quote: Chicot 1
      important Oleg, I always read articles with great and genuine interest

      Thank! I also always look forward to feedback.
      1. Delta
        Delta April 24 2013 22: 47 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But what conclusions can be drawn from the sinking of the Yamato? What is required for the guaranteed sinking of one battleship with primitive air defense 8 aircraft carriers?

        but, of course, the Americans had to take a chance and put no more than one aircraft carrier against an armored monster. Then Kaptsov would be glad and justice would triumph. So Berlin had to be taken by troops equal in number to German. But why did they pile up much larger? give an answer, pliz

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Regarding WWII: the importance of deck aviation is disproportionately significant
        In modern times, the question is: why do we need a super-floating airfield if the legs of the US Air Force can reach anywhere in the World Ocean

        I already asked a question somehow, but you didn’t answer. I’ll ask again: well, let's imagine that you here (well, not in the Pentagon) have proved the uselessness of aircraft carriers to everyone. AND? what's next?
        1. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 00: 00 New
          -1
          Quote: Delta
          it was necessary to risk the Americans and be sure to put no more than one aircraft carrier against an armored monster.

          at least 2 of Essex - whose sum in / and is equal to the displacement of Yamato
          )))

          Quote: Delta
          I’ll ask again: well, let's imagine that you here (well, not in the Pentagon) have proved the uselessness of aircraft carriers to everyone.

          I myself am interested in learning the truth. Is deck aircraft effective today or not?

          So far, all the facts indicate that no.
          Maybe you have good reasons for the usefulness of the Nimites and their colleagues?
          1. Kars
            Kars April 25 2013 00: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Can you have a good reason for the usefulness of the Nimites and their colleagues?

            Maintain a high level of profitability of shipyards, increase public debt, provide sailors with taverns in Newport and Honolulu.
          2. Kaa
            Kaa April 25 2013 01: 20 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I myself am interested in learning the truth. Is deck aircraft effective today or not? So far, all the facts indicate that no.
            “For the first time, battleships (then still sailing)“ died ”in the middle of the 454th century, with the advent of bombing cannons. However, the concept of a battleship itself - the concentration of huge firepower on a squadron - always remained in demand. And battleships turned into battleships: first ships of the type "Peter the Great", and then they were replaced by more powerful battleships of the dreadnought type. The culmination of the development of the artillery battleship was the Yamato, armed with nine XNUMX-mm guns. But it turned out to be clear evidence of the powerlessness of this type of ship in the new conditions of war - standing at the pier almost the entire war, he was sunk by American aircraft in his first and last battle.
            The shocking force of the squadrons was aircraft carriers, which, in essence, remained the same battleships, but armed not with guns, but with naval aviation. The plane gave the fleet the opportunity to perform more significant tasks. 70% of the world's population lives within 300 km of the coastline, about 80% of the capitals of all countries are located at a distance of no more than 500 km from the sea. All this falls under the range of carrier-based aviation. However, the aircraft also has drawbacks. This complex and expensive machine is mainly used as a carrier of bomb and missile weapons - while it is in danger from the enemy’s air defense. In order to deliver several tons of combat cargo to its destination, it also requires a pilot, a precision guidance operator, a whole team of aircraft technicians and other personnel. Therefore, in some cases, the aircraft is significantly inferior in several parameters to a guided missile of medium and short range. So far, the launch of such missiles (sea-based) is carried out with missile cruisers, submarine missile carriers and URO frigates. However, the very same underwater missile carrier of the launch cells has a maximum of 24 - that is, to launch a powerful missile strike, a large number of expensive ships and submarines will be needed.
            The American admirals found a way out in the creation of the ship, which is a large rocket battery with 120 - 140 (or more) vertical launch cells. The project received the name "Arsenal" - it is very symbolic, since, in fact, the ship is a huge missile arsenal of the strike squadron, and the guidance and fire control systems are not on it, but on command squadron ships, escort ships and AWACS aircraft. The new battleship would be armed with a variety of missiles - from ballistic and cruise missiles to anti-aircraft and anti-ship (the benefit of the "capacity" allowed to place a fair supply of all types). Thus, the squadron, which includes Arsenal as a floating powder magazine, increases its firepower several times. At the same time, the cost of the latter is 2–3 times less than that of a modern missile cruiser, and high mechanization and computerization allows the use of the minimum number of crews: 50–70 people versus 2–3 thousand for an aircraft carrier to which Arsenal is equal in strike power. If you look more broadly, it becomes clear that this is a new type of battleship - missile. Arsenal received a new breath with the victory in the election of the militant George W. Bush. His doctrine to destroy the Axis of Evil included the use of strike naval squadrons. However, a new missile battleship was not built by the beginning of the Second Iraq War, and is still under construction at http://www.from-ua.com/technology/4069504bd538d/
          3. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 25 2013 01: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I myself am interested in learning the truth. Is deck aircraft effective today or not?

            If there is no developed system of ground bases, then it is indispensable. If there is, then this is a help for conventional aviation, but, of course, it is less effective.
            I believe the importance of American carrier-based aviation will increase after the adoption of the F-35 and especially the X-47, which will allow for example to attack targets in China and Russia while in the Indian Ocean and not at any risk.
            1. Santa Fe
              April 25 2013 14: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Odyssey
              If there is no developed system of ground bases, then it is indispensable

              The one who does not have a system of ground bases - does not fight far from its shores
              The Russian Federation is cutting with Georgia, India with Pakistan, Israel with the Arabs, North Korea threatens South Korea, Libya with neighboring Chad, Iraq with Iran, etc.
              As for the colonial campaigns of England and France, there are completely different scales and specific methods of warfare.

              Only the Super Powers - the USSR and the USA - fought on foreign shores. But they had a system of bases, airfields, and PMTOs around the world. Currently, the US Air Force has 865 military bases on all continents + the potential to use air bases and civilian airfields in allied countries
              Quote: Odyssey
              X-47, which will allow for example to attack targets in China and Russia while in the Indian Ocean and not exposed to any risk.

              In the Indian Ocean there is a wonderful US Air Force base Diego Garcia

              Diego Garcia, arch. Chagos - 500 km from Seychelles
          4. Delta
            Delta April 25 2013 08: 58 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            at least 2 of Essex - whose sum in / and is equal to the displacement of Yamato

            Fine logic - to evaluate ships by displacement)))) or maybe tankers should have been?)))))
          5. Delta
            Delta April 25 2013 12: 10 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Maybe you have good reasons for the usefulness of the Nimites and their colleagues?

            Do you still selectively answer questions? Yes, and a question for a question. I asked if it was necessary to take Berlin with troops of equal German strength? then we'll talk about Nimits
            1. Kars
              Kars April 25 2013 12: 29 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              asked if it was necessary to take Berlin with troops of equal German strength?

              And can you know the ratio of the number of troops to characterize their combat qualities? Based on the ratio of 1 to 3 (let's say) do you conclude that one German is equivalent to 3 Soviet soldiers? And on this basis refuse to predict the development of events at a ratio of 1 to 1? the characteristics of the military on both sides? We need qualitative data, and the results are set by us.
              1. Delta
                Delta April 25 2013 13: 10 New
                0
                At the time of the capture of Berlin, the fighting qualities of a Red Army soldier were in no way lower than German. This is only by conservative estimates. And even higher, given the fact that the personnel army of Germany was defeated for a long time. In my opinion, all this is not subject to doubt and discussion. BUT the question is different: Kaptsov claims that a bunch of aircraft carriers for one battleship is both a shame and an indicator that aircraft carriers are so weak that only a huge number of them in battle can be the key to success. Hence the question arose, but would not have cost less. Maybe it would cost, but why? and the analogy with the Berlin operation is very appropriate - after all, could it be possible to take Berlin with fewer troops? it could be. But why? The Red Army in this way simply reduced its own losses, leaning in large numbers. And it is right. So why should the Americans count on only two or three aircraft carriers? or are you trying to prove that an aircraft carrier must be equal in strength to any battleship?)))
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 25 2013 13: 17 New
                  0
                  ))))))))))))))
                  Quote: Delta
                  Do you still selectively answer questions?

                  Quote: Delta
                  And can you know the ratio of the number of troops to characterize their fighting qualities?

                  Quote: Delta
                  Kaptsov declares that a bunch of aircraft carriers for one battleship is both a shame and an indicator that aircraft carriers are so weak

                  Where? Everything is correctly described - two aircraft carriers could not have provided a strike on Yamato with the same result.
                  And from the sinking of Yamato, there is no point in making a conclusion about the omnipotence of aircraft carriers,
                  Quote: Delta
                  The Red Army in this way simply reduced its own losses, leaning in large numbers. And it is right

                  To begin with, the Red Army could not storm Berlin, but surround it. It also used very expensive tactics, losses could be several times less.
                  1. Delta
                    Delta April 25 2013 13: 33 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Kars
                    ))))))))))))))

                    and what, actually amused?
                    Quote: Kars
                    two aircraft carriers would not be able to strike at Yamato with the same result.

                    did fortune tellers have?

                    Quote: Kars
                    And from the sinking of Yamato, there is no point in making a conclusion about the omnipotence of aircraft carriers,

                    what omnipotence? Have I stated this somewhere? My estimates (unlike Kaptsov) are just more careful. I adhere to the position that the fleet must be balanced and the same aircraft carriers - assistants. NO MORE. As well as cruisers - assistants to aircraft carriers in the AUG. Any objections?
                    Quote: Kars
                    To begin with, the Red Army could not storm Berlin, but surround it. It also used very expensive tactics, losses could be several times less.

                    Could, but could not. As you said, our results are set by history. And then, if we draw a parallel between Berlin and the sinking of Yamato, then in the first case the losses are enormous, and the price for Yamato is too low
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 25 2013 14: 09 New
                      0
                      Quote: Delta
                      and what, actually amused?

                      That you yourself are not responding, while not answering questions.
                      Quote: Delta
                      did fortune tellers have?

                      If this is your method, then in principle everything is clear with you
                      Quote: Kars
                      relying on quality features

                      and precedents. By the way, when Kaptsov had a similar opinion with respect to Yamato, I and Andrei from Chelyabinsk worked to change his position.
                      Quote: Delta
                      what omnipotence? Have I stated this somewhere?

                      too lazy to look, and as I here one user answered --- according to your tone.
                      Quote: Delta
                      NO MORE. As well as cruisers - assistants to aircraft carriers in the AUG. Any objections?

                      There is a cruiser without an aircraft carrier to carry out its task, but there is no aircraft carrier without a cruiser (meaning modernity)
                      Quote: Delta
                      then the fleet must be balanced and the same aircraft carriers

                      Balanced in comparison with KEM? With the USA or Georgia? And nothing that the United States pays for its balanced fleet by the imbalance of the financial system.

                      I have already written several times to build whether or not this is the problem of the Russian Federation and its money, but personally I think this is a stupid waste of finance. If you certainly were not going to fight with the United States by concluding a written agreement on the non-use of nuclear weapons)))
                      Quote: Delta
                      Could, but could not

                      I don’t want, you see, the argument came between Zhukov and the horse.
                      Quote: Delta
                      and the price for Yamato is too low

                      Well, if we surpassed Germany in 1945 as the United States and Japan, then we would have less losses.
                      Yamato can be said made a solemn sepukka
                      1. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 14: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        That you yourself are not responding, while not answering questions.

                        you fit in for Kaptsov? and what question did not answer?
                        Quote: Kars
                        If this is your method, then in principle everything is clear with you
                        Quote: Kars
                        relying on quality features

                        Yes, I see, everything is clear to you and everyone very quickly. The next argument will be the word "clown"?)) If the war relied only on qualitative characteristics .... I think the idea is clear?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Balanced compared to KEM? With the USA or Georgia?

                        in fact, balance and parity (in your case, symmetry) are two different things)))) The imbalance in the US financial system does not bother me at all. Why are you worried about her?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, if we surpassed Germany in 1945 as the United States and Japan, then we would have less losses.

                        and not exceeded?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 14: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        you fit for Kaptsov?

                        Yes
                        Quote: Delta
                        and what question did not answer?

                        Quote: Kars
                        And can you know the ratio of the number of troops to characterize their fighting qualities?

                        And you began to operate on the afterthought to philosophize.
                        Quote: Delta
                        The next argument will be the word "clown"?))

                        quite possibly.
                        Quote: Delta
                        if the war relied only on qualitative characteristics .... I think the idea is clear?

                        it is clear, but it is weakly related to experimental constructions when the components are considered in perfect shape, without tolerances for aircraft wear, fouling of the bottom of the ship, fighting spirit, etc.

                        Quote: Delta
                        and the imbalance of the US financial system does not bother me at all. Why are you worried about her?

                        I have savings in dollars. And you would have been better off - (it used to be a Ukrainian flag, but we will consider it Russian) if the demand for energy carriers falls. Yes, and it would have crossed the mind of a thinking person that the increase in spending on Russian weapons would also increase its external debt, which has recently grown billions by 50-100, you want to specify.
                        Quote: Delta
                        and not exceeded?

                        not in such a volume as the United States, Japan, there is an order of magnitude superiority, but we even get nybirutsa times.
                      3. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 14: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        you fit for Kaptsov?
                        Yes

                        and he knew that he was a boy thoughtless, since it took him to fit in)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        And can you know the ratio of the number of troops to characterize their fighting qualities?
                        And you began to operate on the afterthought to philosophize.

                        I was sure I answered. Anyway, not enough

                        Quote: Kars
                        The next argument will be the word "clown"?))
                        quite possibly.

                        adequate response will not take long
                        Quote: Kars
                        .And you would rather worry - (before, it seemed like the flag was Ukrainian, but we will consider it Russian)

                        Flag born in the USSR. Have a complaint? Yes, a Russian living in Ukraine. It is important? I'm not worried about the dollar. NOT everything in it.
                        Quote: Kars
                        .Yes, a thought could have crossed the mind that increasing spending on armaments of the Russian Federation will also increase its external debt, which has recently grown by 50-100 billions, want to clarify.

                        and what side of the Russian Federation to aircraft carriers? I do not force the Russian Federation to build aircraft carriers))) if you thought that I was for this - give a link to such a statement of mine. You will not find 100%
                      4. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 14: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        just needed to fit in for him)))

                        I just didn’t like you. (in the subject naturally)
                        Quote: Delta
                        adequate response will not take long

                        your problems
                        Quote: Delta
                        . Have a complaint?
                        I'm interested in citizenship and country of residence

                        Quote: Delta
                        I'm not worried about the dollar. NOT everything in it.

                        it means that you are rather weak in the economy, but you could have done what the mortgage crisis in the USA and its consequences for Ukraine led to
                        Quote: Delta
                        what side of the Russian Federation to aircraft carriers? I do not force the Russian Federation to build aircraft carriers))

                        then what are you doing here?
                      5. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 15: 02 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        I just didn’t like you. (in the subject naturally)

                        ah ah ah sadness. With what? can i find out?
                        Quote: Kars
                        your problems

                        if there were problems))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        I'm interested in citizenship and country of residence

                        I said. Why do you need this?
                        Quote: Kars
                        it means that you are rather weak in the economy, but you could have done what the mortgage crisis in the USA and its consequences for Ukraine led to

                        well, where am I))) but describe what will happen to Ukraine and personally to me if the dollar does collapse
                        Quote: Kars
                        then what are you doing here?

                        in terms of??? on the site ???)))))))))) and what, only those can be here who are for the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia or those who are against?
                      6. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 15: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        ah ah ah sadness

                        not worth it
                        Quote: Delta
                        With what? can i find out?
                        Post stupid banalities, slow down not childishly, there are a lot of pathos. You’ve already got stubbuts and you ... when you answered a question and you are not able to refute it, stupidly remain silent.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Delta
                        and not exceeded?
                        not in such a volume as the United States, Japan, there is an order of magnitude superiority, but we even get nybirutsa times.

                        and silence))))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        if there were problems))))

                        here are the goodies
                        Quote: Delta
                        I said. Why do you need this?
                        why. place of residence is an important factor in assessing the interlocutor, and in applying arguments to him.

                        Quote: Delta
                        well, where am I))) but describe what will happen to Ukraine and personally to me if the dollar does collapse

                        it is better for you to live in blissful ignorance, but for Russia everything will be much worse.
                        Quote: Delta
                        in terms of???
                        In the subject with aircraft carriers.
                        Quote: Delta
                        and what, only those can be here who are for the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia or those who are against?

                        Do you defend aircraft carriers from patriotism for the multinational format American fleet and its state debt?
                      7. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 15: 33 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        not worth it

                        you? sorry)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        silly platitudes post

                        examples in the studio, otherwise unfounded. And simply - chatter.
                        Quote: Kars
                        you are already stubuts and you ..

                        st.te. I'm from your beloved dreamer, and you just slow down, just do not understand this)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Delta
                        and not exceeded?
                        not in such a volume as the United States, Japan, there is an order of magnitude superiority, but we even get nybirutsa times.
                        and silence))))))

                        Something needed to be answered necessarily?))) I do not want to answer, it seemed to me your statement is stupid, that's all.
                        Quote: Kars
                        why. place of residence is an important factor in assessing the interlocutor, and in applying arguments to him.

                        Well, we learned that from Ukraine. Will the arguments change somehow? if there are arguments, the country and nationality are not important. The truth itself is important, for which you claim for some reason

                        Quote: Kars
                        it is better for you to live in blissful ignorance, but for Russia everything will be much worse.

                        someone doesn’t see well?)))) I live in Ukraine and asked to write about it (as well as for the ordinary citizen of this country) what will happen if the dollar collapses. Who is slow? and?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Do you defend aircraft carriers from patriotism for the multinational format American fleet and its state debt?

                        if you call such nonsense a banter, then you need to learn from him))) how can aircraft carriers be protected from any feelings in principle? moreover, from patriotic feelings towards a foreign state. I talked about ships here, their effectiveness in particular))) it's just five!
                      8. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 15: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        not worth it
                        you? sorry)))

                        Did you expect to introduce your fifth point to him? I don’t stop by this way.
                        Quote: Delta
                        examples in the studio, otherwise unfounded. And simply - chatter.

                        C'mon, you will still go to the unconscious
                        Quote: Delta
                        So Berlin had to be taken by troops equal in number to German

                        Really nonsense? So stupidly to overtake what is being discussed is the real characteristics of individual units, and their capabilities)))

                        Quote: Delta
                        st.te. I'm from your beloved dreamer, and you just slow down, just do not understand this)))

                        Yes, of course you are trying - this is a pathetic attempt to jump off the topic when it is clear that you are slowing down and catching up.
                        Quote: Delta
                        Well, we learned that from Ukraine.
                        I would have known earlier, the arguments would have changed. Ukraine still does not need an aircraft carrier, so it’s not clear that you are showing your strange position here.

                        Quote: Delta
                        The truth itself is important, for which you claim for some reason

                        Are you looking for the truth? You still have not understood that military affairs and economics are interconnected components and are looking for something)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        the same will happen if the dollar collapses. Who is slow? and?

                        naturally you, you don’t know what the boyats are all over the world, you see you’ve definitely slowed down the whole of 2008, you don’t know what the world reserve currency is - so it makes sense to explain something to you.
                        Quote: Delta
                        . I talked about ships here, their effectiveness in particular))) it's just five!

                        You are stupidly raving here, because ships cannot be separated from the economy. And their effectiveness also lies in this plane.
                      9. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 16: 04 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Did you expect to introduce your fifth point to him? I don’t stop by this way.

                        no, wanted to express condolences
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really nonsense? So stupidly to overtake what is being discussed is the real characteristics of individual units, and their capabilities)))

                        is it really stupid to take and not answer simply?))) but the answer is really simple, you just need to remove the stubbornness of yourself incomprehensible. I’ll explain it again for the tankers: if Kaptsov claims that Yamato should have been beaten by his equal displacement (and there was such a phrase), then Berlin should have taken equal troops in QUANTITY. Already understood?

                        Quote: Kars
                        I would have known earlier, the arguments would have changed. Ukraine still does not need an aircraft carrier, so it’s not clear that you are showing your strange position here.

                        how would they change? we are both from Ukraine. AND? but what does it have to do with the fact that Ukraine does not need an aircraft carrier?))) do you read carefully? I said, like, I’m discussing ships here. Including aircraft carriers. Mostly American. Does this show my position on the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia or UKRAINE (!!!)? how did logic bring you into such a conclusion?)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you looking for the truth? You still have not understood that military affairs and economics are interconnected components and are looking for something

                        I personally found it a long time ago. But you, the great economist, making a bunch of mistakes, have not yet explained how the fall of the dollar will affect Ukraine and the average citizen. The answer will be, a lover of answers? ;-) Well, we already heard about braking. And if you try to show you that you are still an adult and you will give arguments, and not drool?
                      10. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 16: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        no, wanted to express condolences

                        For the intentions, of course, it’s a spastbo, but for some reason you were thinking about my sexual strength in the topic with aircraft carriers. It seems that you are expressing regret, on behalf of your soft spot, and now when you were given to understand that you still do not shine)) )
                        Quote: Delta
                        not worth it
                        you? sorry)))

                        Seen you geyropa close))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        really stupid to take and not answer simply?))) and

                        netup, you should already be ashamed that by the way it is very susceptible to trying to jump on sexual topics)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        if Kaptsov claims that Yamato should have been beaten by equal to him in terms of displacement (and there was such a phrase), then Berlin should have taken equal troops in QUANTITY. Already understood?
                        You naturally goof off again, everything is only in your short-lived fantasy.
                        But the phrase where it HAS BEEN SHOULD BE brought, I’m still scamming with you, only completely with context, so that you can explain.

                        Quote: Delta
                        how would they change? we are both from Ukraine. AND?

                        it's a pity.
                        Quote: Delta
                        I said it’s like I’m discussing ships here
                        you are trying to prove something, while not understanding that ships simply do not grow on trees.
                        Quote: Delta
                        This shows my position on the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia or UKRAINE (!!!)

                        So, you are against the construction by Russia of such cool and effective aircraft carriers for a balanced one, it is not clear for what purpose the Russian fleet?
                        Quote: Delta
                        I personally found her a long time ago

                        this is to the psychiatrist
                        Quote: Delta
                        In Ukraine, however, the fall of the dollar will affect the average citizen. The answer will be, a lover of answers? ;-)

                        The answer for your development is too complicated, you need to know at least the beginnings of the economy for this, but you are a former military man. For example, the USA is the largest consumer of energy resources and services, and that the world is globalized, but where do you understand that the drop in US consumption, for example for Ukraine, almost instantly, metal and agricultural products will fall in sales. The influx of investments will decrease, which will already begin to be withdrawn by investing. But again, this is difficult for you.
                        Quote: Delta
                        And if you try to show you that you are still an adult and you will give arguments, and not drool?

                        I’m doing this, you should just say that you don’t start for some reason, by the way there is a saying that someone hurts, that’s what he says. So I'm sorry for your partner, at least you can be there as a friend.
                      11. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 16: 42 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        how would they change? we are both from Ukraine. AND?
                        it's a pity.

                        I’ll leave all the vyser aside and only again they didn’t give an answer to this question - how would the arguments change?

                        Quote: Kars
                        you are trying to prove something, while not understanding that ships simply do not grow on trees.

                        Well, I certainly do not prove the rational grain in the construction of aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation or even more so (that's a fantasy) by Ukraine

                        Quote: Kars
                        So, you are against the construction by Russia of such cool and effective aircraft carriers for a balanced one, it is not clear for what purpose the Russian fleet?

                        What does it mean, am I against it? Am I in the government of the Russian Federation? or her president? unfortunately, the affairs of Russia are far from me. How will it be there - they decide. And not on the forums))) the USA has such cool and effective (your words, not mine) aircraft carriers (in such quantity only they have) and let them rejoice. Personally, I am also somewhere glad for a country that could afford it

                        Quote: Kars
                        this is to the psychiatrist

                        have a medical background?

                        Quote: Kars
                        The answer for your development is too complicated, you need to know at least the beginning of the economy for this, but you are a former military man.


                        it’s a pity that you weren’t even a military man. In the development of yesterday’s schoolchild forever, excuse me. And here I don’t need a psychiatrist either, I once took a course in forensic psychiatry. And about sexual problems, I look, hooked, since I mention it again and again)))))) who after this from the geyropa?)))))))))) Ahaha
                      12. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 17: 07 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        but how would the arguments change?

                        Quote: Kars
                        . And you would be better off worried - (before, it was like the flag was Ukrainian, but we will consider it Russian) if the demand for energy carriers falls.

                        It is strange that there is something incomprehensible, there would be no mention of energy resources, since this RF is dependent on their exports.
                        Quote: Delta
                        Well, I certainly do not prove the rational grain in the construction of aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation

                        then what do you prove?
                        Quote: Delta
                        What does it mean, am I against it? Am I in the government of the Russian Federation? or her president?

                        You can’t speak out about the likely shipbuilding program of the Russian Federation, then what is the point of discussing the ships for you?
                        Quote: Delta
                        . And not on the forums)))
                        But we are on the forums, and so far no one is forbidding us to discuss.
                        However, why are we writing here?))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        so cool and effective (your words, not mine)
                        So the carriers are not very cool and not effective)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        Personally, I am also somewhere glad for a country that could afford it

                        )))))) I'm shocked. why are you happy,
                        Quote: Delta
                        have a medical background?

                        You can see with a naked eye.
                        Quote: Delta
                        it’s a pity that you weren’t even a military man

                        unfortunately for a whole year I looked at such smart military)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        In the development of yesterday’s schoolchild forever, excuse me.
                        Are you able to refute my answer to your tearful requests? I don’t see the text? The demand for metal will rise? The flow of investment will increase? Maybe you’ll be glad that the savings of Ukrainian citizens and there’s not one billion dollars are depreciating --- maybe you’ll lose it there is nothing.
                        Quote: Delta
                        I once took a course in forensic psychiatry
                        unless survey.
                        Quote: Delta
                        And about sexual problems, I look, hooked, since I mention it again and again)))))) who after this from the geyropa?)))))))))) Ahaha

                        Well, you have to support you if you are not projecting your problems with a partner.
                      13. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 17: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Delta
                        Well, I certainly do not prove the rational grain in the construction of aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation
                        then what do you prove?

                        and here you are, first, before arguing with a person, follow his thought, carefully read the posts, then draw conclusions. And then they attributed to me the devil knows that I must later explain that this is not so. Such a surprise is heard, as if in this topic you can only take two positions: those who are for the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia and those who are against. Amazing logic

                        Quote: Kars
                        You can’t speak out about the likely shipbuilding program of the Russian Federation, then what is the point of discussing the ships for you?

                        firstly, if you please explain yourself more clearly, and secondly, the ship, this is a ship and discussing it and its application, efficiency - this does not mean discussing the shipbuilding program of any country. Do not find?

                        Quote: Kars
                        so cool and effective (your words, not mine) So the aircraft carriers are not very cool and not effective)))

                        I say again - your words were. Mine here are effective. If only because they talk so much about them. Including you. So this is not an invention forgotten by God

                        Quote: Kars
                        Personally, I am also somewhere glad for a country that could afford it
                        )))))) I'm shocked. why are you happy,

                        why not be happy for people who allowed themselves something ???
                        Quote: Kars
                        have a medical background?
                        You can see with a naked eye.

                        It is clear that I can make a diagnosis, I know))) but you can see that education passed you by. And any
                        Quote: Kars
                        it’s a pity that you weren’t even a military man
                        unfortunately for a whole year I looked at such smart military)))

                        such smart military men as I kept the same States in fear. You did not have to look at them, but study
                        Quote: Kars
                        -Although maybe you have nothing to lose on the campaign.

                        why do you keep savings in dollars?))) I keep in gold and real estate. God knows what kind of savings, but it will always be worth the price. That's all, relax to worry so much for me)))
                      14. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 19: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        and here you first, before arguing with a person, follow his thought, carefully read the posts, then draw conclusions

                        I've read enough of you, and summarize your so-called, now also dodgy position. Super-duper aircraft carrier)) 0
                        Quote: Delta
                        those who are for the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia and those who are against. Amazing logic
                        you don’t have any logic at all, you’re just trying to torture the keyboard here?
                        Quote: Delta
                        firstly, if you please explain yourself more clearly, and secondly, a ship is a ship and discussing it and its application, efficiency - this does not mean discussing the shipbuilding program of any country. Do not find?

                        I don’t find it. So you can’t, or rather not be able to, imagine the prospects of the shipbuilding program.
                        Quote: Delta
                        I say again - your words were. Mine here are effective. If only because they talk so much about them. Including you. So this is not an invention forgotten by God
                        it’s strange how you can say effective if you do not take into account the economy, and well, the same need for the effectiveness of aircraft carriers in that they discuss their inefficiency)))) well, they may soon forget (in the historical period of time)
                        Quote: Delta
                        why not be happy for people who allowed themselves something ???
                        For starters, they were enemies of the USSR, and one could say they deprived bread of butter that went into military construction in the USSR. And let them, at the expense of everyone else, work out the dollar system in the world.

                        Quote: Delta
                        I’m sure that I can make a diagnosis, I know))) but you can see that education passed you by. And any
                        Tell it to your doctor))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        such smart military as I kept the same States in fear

                        it is necessary so here is who is to blame that the USSR fell apart))) probably from the USA fright
                        Quote: Delta
                        why do you keep savings in dollars?))) I keep in gold and in real estate

                        Well, of course, in gold - wedding rings, real estate an apartment in a military town))) by the way, are you not aware that gold has fallen? But apartments in the crisis will not cost anything, especially in stagnating areas)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        That's all, relax to worry so much for me)))
                      15. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 19: 21 New
                        0
                        But the most important thing is that from the answer there is rtmorozitsa

                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you able to refute my answer to your tearful requests? I don’t see the text? The demand for metal will rise? The flow of investment will increase? Maybe you’ll be glad that the savings of Ukrainian citizens and there’s not one billion dollars are depreciating --- maybe you’ll lose it there is nothing.
                        and it satisfied your real questions?)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        It is strange that there is something incomprehensible, there would be no mention of energy resources, since this RF is dependent on their exports.
                      16. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 20: 43 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Kars
                        I've read enough of you, and summarize your so-called, now also dodgy position. Super-duper aircraft carrier)) 0

                        It's up to you))) so super duper))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        it’s strange how you can say effective if you do not take into account the economy, and well, the same need for the effectiveness of aircraft carriers in that they discuss inefficiency

                        and there is also the effectiveness of assault rifles, pistols, knives, radar stations, and so on and so forth. Jammed, like Kaptsova on aircraft carriers))) I have nothing to do with it.
                        Quote: Kars
                        For starters, they were enemies of the USSR, and one could say they deprived bread of butter that went into military construction in the USSR. And let them, at the expense of everyone else, work out the dollar system in the world.

                        ah fuligan)))) and what that they were enemies of the USSR? that country is no longer there. Even the enemy can be respected. Well, just a kindergarten. What are you doing here?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Tell it to your doctor

                        about your education? yes it would be your parents ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, of course, in gold - wedding rings, real estate apartment in a military town

                        it is only in your dreams and fruitless attempts to somehow hurt me))) (because it’s small, young man). I will not measure apartments and other households with you, I left that age)))

                        I hope you are satisfied and will sleep peacefully, knowing that the aircraft carriers are already cutting, and I eke out a miserable existence in a military town, periodically visiting a psychiatrist)))))))))))))))
                      17. Kars
                        Kars April 25 2013 21: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        It's up to you))) so super duper))))

                        Just yours.
                        Quote: Delta
                        and there is also the effectiveness of assault rifles, pistols, knives, radar stations, and so on and so forth

                        Well, about this in other topics, or do you have verbal diarrhea?
                        Quote: Delta
                        ah fuligan)))) and what that they were enemies of the USSR? that country is no longer there. Even the enemy can be respected. Well, just a kindergarten. What are you doing here?

                        I am laughing with people like you, respecting the enemy, rejoicing for him --- it is clear why the USSR lost at such costs.
                        Quote: Delta
                        about your education?
                        Well, you want to discuss this topic with him. How will your other kompleksy and phobias discuss.

                        Quote: Delta
                        it’s only in your dreams and fruitless attempts to somehow hurt me))) (because it’s small, young man). I will not measure apartments and other households with you, I left that age)))

                        sorry, sorry, but I wanted to measure my grandfather, just at that age.
                        Quote: Delta
                        I hope you are satisfied and will sleep peacefully, knowing that the aircraft carriers are already cutting, and I eke out a miserable existence in a military town, periodically visiting a psychiatrist)))))))))))))))
                        Yes, and you slept quietly. And the aircraft carriers - the new English Quins, as they finish building, they immediately put them into reserve, and put one up for sale))) and you can’t get out of the psychiatrist's campaign.
                      18. Delta
                        Delta April 25 2013 21: 53 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, about this in other topics, or do you have verbal diarrhea?

                        No, you have carrier constipation
                        Quote: Kars
                        I am laughing with people like you, respecting the enemy, rejoicing for him --- it is clear why the USSR lost at such costs.

                        The USSR lost due to h..shnikov who do not know how to hold anything heavier than a member. I see who I mean? laugh further, did not know that I was talking with a horse. And the enemy was respected by all the great military leaders and real soldiers. True, how do you know about this, in special schools the history course is reduced. And in the alternative, everything is not like in humans)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Delta
                        about your education?
                        Well, you want to discuss this topic with him. How will your other kompleksy and phobias discuss.

                        what does the phobia and complexes of someone have, if you have a lack of education? Well this is obvious. Yes, and general development
                        Quote: Kars
                        sorry, sorry, but I wanted to measure my grandfather, just at that age.

                        with your grandfather will be measured. In his sandbox. But I don’t have granddaughters yet.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, and you slept quietly

                        judging by how you are tormented by aircraft carriers - restlessly)))
                      19. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 10: 21 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        No

                        What else to expect from you))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        The USSR lost due to h..shnikov who do not know how anything heavier than a member in his hands holding

                        So I clearly wrote that you are one of them. and if the colon is replaced by M and O, then your exact characteristic will come out
                        Quote: Delta
                        laugh further, did not know that I was talking with a horse.

                        The world is full of discoveries, especially for a person with such a sick imagination as you,
                        Quote: Delta
                        And the enemy was respected by all the great military leaders and real soldiers

                        and rejoiced too)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        special schools shortened history course.

                        Do you know from personal experience? They got there after a forensic psychiatric examination))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        what does the phobia and complexes of someone have, if you have a lack of education

                        Well, do not discuss, you already have something to discuss with the doctor)))
                        Quote: Delta
                        with your grandfather will be measured
                        he died a long time ago, by the way he took Bresslau, was on the Kursk, while those for whom you are happy pulled with the opening of the second front of the aircraft carrier system)))

                        Quote: Delta
                        But I don’t have granddaughters yet.

                        I’m even self-conscious about your children. They aren’t coming from non-traditional relations))
                        Quote: Delta
                        judging by how you are tormented by aircraft carriers - restlessly)))

                        if you are so pleased to think - please)))
                        and so what did you shut up about the collapse of the dolar and its influence on Ukraine, since it will affect a simple Ukrainian or not?
  • Alex
    Alex 22 September 2013 16: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN (1)
    I myself am interested in learning the truth. Is deck aircraft effective today or not?

    Certainly effective. In the framework where its application promises great benefits at lower cost (all and all, or those that are acceptable). From this simple conclusions:
    1. AB is not a panacea;
    2. there are never many weapons;
    3. Startegia and tactics should never be forgotten;
    4. every vegetable has its own time and place.
    5. miracle weapons do not exist.
  • Arct
    Arct April 24 2013 12: 41 New
    +2
    SWEET, I have a feeling that sometimes someone is too lazy to read to the end. We take the phrase out of context and begin to protest it. This is about the "urban legend." Is it okay that in the next phrase the protest wrote everything the same as you did after the urban legend?

    And the Japanese really lost the war by joining it - this is exactly what mattresses craved. That’s what they brought the Japanese to ...
  • smart ass
    smart ass April 24 2013 12: 51 New
    +2
    To compare aviks and surface ships is complete stupidity, at least because of the range of application) Analogy - I have a 2-meter crowbar from an enemy of brass knuckles) who will win ??
    1. Gato
      Gato April 24 2013 16: 09 New
      0
      The analogy is not entirely correct. I have no doubt in your physical form, but how long will you be able to wave a 2-meter crowbar? What if the enemy attacks from around the corner? angry
      It all depends on the specific situation. For example, two German battleships caught the Glories aircraft carrier and two escort destroyers did not go over with very sad consequences for the British.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass April 24 2013 19: 57 New
        0
        They didn’t catch him, but quite by chance ran into ... luck no more
  • _KM_
    _KM_ April 24 2013 12: 56 New
    0
    Interesting article. I liked the debunking of the American myth.
  • avt
    avt April 24 2013 13: 20 New
    +2
    ,, If the Japanese have anti-aircraft fire control computers, five-inch high-speed anti-aircraft guns Mk.12, automatic 40 mm Bofors guns, small-caliber "Erlikons" with tape power and shells with a radar fuse Mk.53 (all that was at that time standard equipment of US Navy ships) - I’m afraid Yamato would kill American planes like a flock of bird flu and die in an “honest” artillery battle with six American battleships. "------ And if the Japanese had nuclear bomb, so generally won the war. laughing And if death rays were thought of buying from Tesla, the whole world would speak Japanese. laughing I remember recalling the first war in the Gulf, when amers were killed at night with the advancing Iraqi armored vehicles, and as a result our general said that the Amers were cowards, they would have shown Kuzkin’s mother in a tank battle. laughing
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 24 2013 22: 46 New
      0
      If grandmother had ... she would be grandfather!
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang April 24 2013 13: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    I once developed an alternative to landing on Pearl. And all that broke it was the art of the Americans battery, the japs ​​with their forces lacked the power to crush them, even with 6 aircraft carriers

    Yes Yes. About - how did the "Concrete Armadillo of America" ​​fall? Toys, even very good ones, do not quite correspond to reality. All factors cannot be taken into account. Therefore, staff officers (and your humble servant, including), having all the summaries and reference data on any decent teaching, do not sleep - constantly sorting out the options and preparing a solution for the introductory results that Moscow can unexpectedly give.
    I personally admire the Japanese naval staff.
  • washi
    washi April 24 2013 14: 16 New
    +1
    Modern Western anti-ship missiles cannot penetrate the LK corps. In modern LC, in addition to artillery, you can install modern air defense and anti-ship missiles of long range, aircraft (helicopters) AWACS. If active-reactive 155 mm shells fly at a distance of up to 70 km, then how far will a 406 mm shell fly with a homing head (if necessary), and also in the coastal zone, group targets - ports, anti-ship missiles, airfields. Against most of Europe, Asia, Africa and America - a ship vulnerable to direct nuclear weapons (and the use of nuclear weapons will cause a backlash). I think the application for LC in the new look is and will be. It was not for nothing that Amerians saved Iowa type LCs, while ours came up with missiles to break through their armor.
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 April 24 2013 14: 21 New
    +2
    The author of the article is an opponent of aviation?
    1. Andy
      Andy April 24 2013 14: 25 New
      +5
      he is a lifelong fighter with aircraft carriers. Well, he doesn’t like them and that’s it.
      1. Gato
        Gato April 24 2013 15: 49 New
        +3
        Well, yes, do not fight battleships! They are already almost gone laughing
      2. Delta
        Delta April 24 2013 17: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Andy
        he is a lifelong fighter with aircraft carriers. Well, he doesn’t like them and that’s it.

        And the next article will be that the defeat in Taranto was not a defeat at all. And if the defeat, then not by the forces of carrier-based aviation, but by forces ... well, for example, of floating tanks. Kaptsov will come up, do not hesitate. All myth and all delusions. All these years, historians and the military were mistaken, but Kaptsov opens their eyes to them. Yes, and “Bismarck” did not wound the deck, no of course)))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 24 2013 22: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          rout in Taranto - there was no rout at all. And if defeat, then not by the forces of carrier-based aviation, but by forces ...

          Navy Taranto famously defeated 20 plywood "Swordfish" - three Italian battleships anchored in one night were sunk

          But why couldn't 20 (or at least 100) plywood Swordfish defeat the Altenfjord? request
          It took as many 700 sorties and 5-ton super-bombs "Tollboy"

          spoiler: Italian bambino didn’t even bother to pull the anti-torpedo net, for which they paid, pasta
          Quote: Delta
          Yes, and “Bismarck” did not hurt the deck, no, of course

          Well, at least somewhere they should have distinguished themselves? !! Dozens of British aircraft carriers, hundreds of deck aircraft.
          It’s not constant for them to drown from one torpedo, as the thunderstorm of the seas “Arc Royal” did
          1. Delta
            Delta April 24 2013 22: 39 New
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Well, at least somewhere they should have distinguished themselves ?!

            Well, it’s necessary, but I already thought it was a clinic. But no, something else is perceived. and "at least somewhere" - is it only in this battle? all? great historian, carrier-based aviation in the future participated exclusively in parades?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It’s not constant for them to drown from one torpedo, as the thunderstorm of the seas “Arc Royal” did

            As if from torpedoes other "thunderstorms of the seas" did not sink. And battleships including
            1. Santa Fe
              April 25 2013 01: 06 New
              -1
              Quote: Delta
              did carrier-based aviation subsequently participate exclusively in parades?

              It would be nice to take a look at the list of 10 largest deck aviation trophies
              Quote: Delta
              As if from torpedoes other "thunderstorms of the seas" did not sink. And battleships including

              The survivability of battleships was an order of magnitude higher
              1. Delta
                Delta April 25 2013 09: 00 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The survivability of battleships was an order of magnitude higher

                Do you remember how many of them were heated? Incidentally, including airplanes
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 25 2013 09: 38 New
                  0
                  Nglia
                  Aircraft carriers
                  Korejes 17 September 1939 torpedoed and sunk by the German submarine U-29 in 150 miles southwest of Cape Misen Head. 518 people died.
                  Glories 8 June 1940 sunk by the artillery of the German battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, 300 miles from Tromsø. 1472 people died.
                  Ark Royal on 13 on November 1941 was torpedoed by a German U-81 submarine 150 miles east of Gibraltar. November 14 sank while towing 25 miles from Gibraltar. Killed 1 people.
                  Hermes 9 on April 1942 was sunk by diving Val bomber from the Japanese aircraft carriers Hiru, Shokaku and Zuikaku near Ceylon. 302 people died.
                  Eagles 11 August 1942 torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine U-73, 65 miles south of the island of Mallorca. 263 people were killed.
                  Odessa 21 1941 in December was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine U-751 in 500 miles west of Cape Finisterre. 72 people died.
                  The 15 Avenger on November 1942 was torpedoed and sunk by the German U-155 submarine, 100 miles west of Gibraltar.
                  On March 27, the 1943 dasher sank as a result of a gas explosion at the mouth of the Clyde River. 378 people died. Severely damaged, not restored
                  Nabob 22 on August 1944 was torpedoed by a German submarine U-354, 120 miles from Cape Nordkapp.
                  Khan 15 January 1945 was torpedoed by a German submarine U-482 at the mouth of the Clyde River.
                  U.S.
                  Aircraft carriers
                  Lexington May 8, 1942 in the Coral Sea is heavily damaged by diving bombers and torpedo bombers from the Japanese aircraft carriers "Shokaku" and
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 25 2013 09: 40 New
                    0
                    Shokaku 19 June 1944 in the Philippine Sea was torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Cavella. 1263 people died.
                    Taiho 19 June 1944 g. Damaged by a torpedo of the American submarine Albacore. After 8 hours, gasoline vapors exploded, the ship sank. 1650 people died.
                    Hiyo 20 June 1944 in the Philippine Sea was sunk by torpedo bombers Avenger of the light aircraft carrier Bello Wood.
                    Chitose 25 on October 1944 was sunk by aircraft of the Essex and Lexington aircraft carriers, 235 miles east of Cape Enganyo.
                    Zuijo 25 October 1944 in 215 miles east of Cape Enganyo sunk by aircraft carriers Essex and Langley.
                    Zuikaku 25 October 1944 220 miles east of Cape Enganyo sunk by the aircraft of the American aircraft carriers Kaupens, Intrepid, Lexington, San Jacinto.
                    Chiyoda 25 on October 1944, 260 miles east of Cape Enganyo, was severely damaged by the aircraft of the Franklin and Lexington aircraft carriers. Later sunk by artillery of American cruisers.
                    XINUMX 29 November 1944 torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Archerfish off the coast of Japan. 1435 people died.
                    Unryu 19 December 1944 in the East China Sea was torpedoed and sunk by the American Redfish submarine.
                    Amagi 24 and 28 of July 1945 were severely damaged by aircraft of the 38 Operational Connection in Kura. 29 of June capsized on the starboard side and sank in shallow water.
                    Severely damaged, not restored
                    Zunyu 9 December 1944 torpedoed by American submarines "Redfish" and "Sea Devil" in the East China Sea. Brought in Sasebo, not repaired.
                    Escort aircraft carriers
                    Thuyo 4 December 1943 was sunk by an American submarine "Sailfish" in 260 miles southeast of Yokosuki.
                    Tayo 18 on August 1944 was sunk by the US submarine Recher northwest of Luzon Island.
                    Unyo 15 September 1944 was sunk by the American submarine Barb in the South China Sea.
                    Xinyum 17 November 1944 sunk by the American submarine "Speedfish" in the Yellow Sea.
                    Severely damaged, not restored
                    Kayo 24 on July 1944 was severely damaged by the aircraft of the British aircraft carriers Formidadebl, Indefetigable, Viktories in Beppu Bay, was not repaired.
                    Air transport
                    Mizuho 2 on May 1942 was sunk by the American submarine Dram northwest of Yokohama.
                    The Nissin 22 on July 1943 was sunk by dive bombers of the Dountless American Marines near Bougainville Island.
                    Nigitsu Maru on 12 on January 1944 was sunk by an American submarine Hake near the island of Rasa.
                    Akitsushima of 24 on September 1944 was sunk by aircraft of the 38 Operational Connection in Koron Bay.
                    Akitsu Maru on 15 on November 1944 was sunk by the American submarine Quinfish in the Strait of Korea.
                    Yamashiro Maru on 17 on February 1945 was sunk by aircraft of the 58 Operational Connection in Yokohama harbor.
                    Shimane Maru on 24 on July 1945 was sunk in shallow water near Takamatsu by aircraft of the 38 Operational Connection.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol April 25 2013 10: 35 New
                      +1
                      Good, Kars! you put sunken aircraft carriers on one side of the scale, including all the little things along with air transport - on the other, almost all types of troops and weapons from submarines and combat swimmers to heavy aircraft drowned them. And how many of them drowned battleships? 1 + 1 escort. And how many battleships were drowned by aircraft carriers? Well, let's put on the other side of the scale all LCs, Kr, Em, Submarines, and other ships sunk by aircraft carriers and compare this work with any type of ships. Downed planes, coastal operations can not even be considered. Weak to lay out a list of victims of aircraft carriers? for sure it will be sooo long
                2. Kars
                  Kars April 25 2013 09: 41 New
                  0
                  Aircraft carriers
                  Lexington 8 May 1942 in the Coral Sea is heavily damaged by diving bombers and torpedo bombers from the Japanese aircraft carriers "Shokaku" and "Zuikaku". After a series of explosions of gasoline vapors and ammunition left by the team, about 19.00 sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Phelps. 216 people died.
                  Yorktown 4 June 1942 g. Seriously damaged by the aircraft of the Japanese aircraft carrier "Hiru" near the atoll Midway. 6 June torpedoed by the Japanese submarine I-168. Sank 7 June.
                  Wasp 15 September 1942 year torpedoed by a Japanese submarine I-19 near the island of Espiritu Santo. Sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Lansdowne. 193 people died.
                  Hornet 26 October 1942 in the area of ​​the Santa Cruz Islands is heavily damaged by diving bombers and torpedo bombers from the Japanese aircraft carriers "Shokaku", "Zuikaku", "Zunyo". Left by the crew, torpedoed by the American destroyers Anderson and Mastin. On the night of October 26 / 27, the Japanese destroyers Akigumo and Makigumo finished off.
                  Princeton 24 October 1944 east of Luzon Island was damaged by a single Judy dive bomber from a coastal airfield. After a series of explosions of ammunition, it was sunk by torpedoes of the American light cruiser Renault. 298 people died.
                  Escort aircraft carriers
                  Lisk Bay 24 on November 1943 was torpedoed and sunk by the Japanese submarine I-175 near the island of Makin. Killed 591 people.
                  The Island Block 29 on May 1944 was sunk by the German U-549 submarine 450 miles south of the Azores. 6 people died.
                  Gambir Bay on 25 October 1944 was sunk by the artillery of the Japanese heavy cruisers Chokai, Haguro, Tone near the island of Samar. 100 people died.
                  Sen Lo 25 October 1944 g. Sunk kamikaze near the island of Samar. 46 people died.
                  Omani Bay 4 January 1945 g. Near the island of Mindoro severely damaged kamikaze, sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Barnes
                  Bismarck Si 21 February 1945 year sunk kamikaze near the island of Iwo Jima. 119 people died. Severely damaged, not restored
                  Sengamon of 4 on May 1945 was severely damaged by a kamikaze near Okinawa Island. Restored after the war as a merchant ship.
                  The Langley of 27 on February 1942 was severely damaged by the Japanese Betty base bombers, 75 miles south of Java. Sunk by artillery of the American destroyer Whipple.
                  Germany
                  Aircraft carrier
                  Count Zeppelin 24 April 1945 g. Flooded in Stettin.
                  Italy
                  Aircraft carrier
                  Aquila After the capitulation of Italy on September 8, 1943 was captured by the Germans in Genoa. 19 April 1945 was sunk by the Anglo-Italian team of combat swimmers.
                  Japan
                  Aircraft carriers
                  Seho 7 May 1942 in the Coral Sea was sunk by the aircraft of the American aircraft carriers Lexington and Yorktown. About 550 people died.
                  Akagi of 4 On June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was severely damaged by the diving bomber of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. 5 of June was sunk by the torpedoes of the Japanese destroyers Arashi and Novake. 283 people died
                  Litter 4 June 1942 near the Midway Atoll sunk by dive bombers "Dountless" aircraft carrier "Yorktown". 718 people died.
                  Kaga 4 On June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was sunk by diving bombers of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. About 800 people died.
                  Weighing 4 on June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was severely damaged by the diving bomber of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. Left by the crew, 5 of June was sunk by torpedoes of the Japanese destroyers Kajegumo and Makigumo. 416 people died.
                  Ryujo August 24, 1942 in the area of ​​the Eastern Solomon Islands sunk by aircraft carriers "Saratoga" and "Enterprise". Killed over 600 people
          2. Delta
            Delta April 24 2013 22: 43 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But why couldn't 20 (or at least 100) plywood Swordfish defeat the Altenfjord?

            and it was necessary to do this only deck carrier ??? why?
    2. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 21: 49 New
      -1
      Quote: Andrey77
      The author of the article is an opponent of aviation?

      Deck Aviation

      For half a century, this circus has been issued as a super-weapon
      1. Delta
        Delta April 24 2013 22: 03 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Deck Aviation

        For half a century, this circus has been issued as a super-weapon

        Americans bluff, and Kaptsov revealed this bluff! Oh how. The only thing left is to put a couple of torpedo torrents into each of these troughs and use them. Kaptsov, will you do it?
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang April 24 2013 14: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: Vasya
    I think the application for LC in the new look is and will be. It was not for nothing that Amerians saved Iowa type LCs, and ours invented rockets to break through their armor.

    Do not fantasize. Missiles to break through the "THEM" armor are now gone. The last generation is the P-15 series. But to resume the production of FCM warhead fellow
    Listen, only no offense, did you take this from the books of M. Kalashnikov?
    He had something about the Russian Superlinkor. Excuse me, I don’t remember which book. I remember that we debated on exercises in the smoking room, but not for long. For they came to the correct conclusion - one in the field is not a warrior.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 24 2013 14: 56 New
    0
    Once again about the survivability of aircraft carriers. Recall Enterprise and Forestall. One small 127 mm unguided missile was enough to cause severe damage to aircraft carriers. And if you imagine for a moment the hit of “Granite”, “Basalt”, or at least “Mosquito”? Tom Clancy nervously smokes on the sidelines ...
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang April 24 2013 15: 45 New
    0
    Quote: VohaAhov
    One small 127 mm unguided missile was enough to cause severe damage to aircraft carriers. And if you imagine for a moment the hit of “Granite”, “Basalt”, or at least “Mosquito”? Tom Clancy nervously smokes on the sidelines

    The necessary BJJ activities were taken into account and implemented. It was difficult to examine Tom, your beloved, Clancy and at the level of a muddy drop. When did the Enterprise lift the first catapult take-off aircraft from its catapults? How much time has passed? I won’t even get into the numbers. See the battle path of this nishtyak.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 22: 54 New
      -1
      Quote: Kavtorang
      The necessary BJJ activities were taken into account and implemented.

      Really?

      May 25, 1981 During work ups off the eastern Florida coast, an EA-6B Prowler, assigned to Marine Tactical Electronics Warfare Squadron (VMAQ) 2 Det. Y, crash-landed on the flight deck at 2351, killing 14 crewmen (including Prowler crew: Capt. Elwood M. Armstrong, Jr., 1st Lt. Steve E. White and 1st Lt. Lawrence D. Cragun) and injuring 48 others . The fire destroyed Prowler and three Tomcats, and damaged two Tomcats, nine Corsair IIs, one Intruder, three Vikings and one Sea King. The Nimitz returned to port to repair damaged catapults and returned to sea less than 48 hours later to complete its training schedule.

      continued - http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn68history.htm

      In 1981, on the Nimitz deck, the Prauller EW crashed, killing 14 and injuring 48 people.

      Four planes burned in the fire: Prawler himself and three Tomcat
      Another 15 aircraft and helicopter were damaged - consider one moment, and Nimitz lost its 1 / 3 air wing.

      A photo is a similar case on the Midway aircraft carrier. It is impossible to predict and prevent such disasters - they will be as long as there is a circus called "carrier-based aviation"
  • knn54
    knn54 April 24 2013 15: 59 New
    -1
    - air base on the island of Leyte. “Deck” aircraft refueled, replenished ammunition and returned to the sea again to attack the Japanese squadron. As a result, escort aircraft carriers did not need to adjust their course under the wind and provide takeoff and landing operations - otherwise, it would be unrealistic to escape from cruisers and battleships.
    Here's the answer to the question: the Yankees did not conduct a single operation against the Japanese, while not having overwhelming superiority.
    And today, in addition to torpedoes, ships and nuclear submarines also have missiles. So classic aircraft carriers have no future.
  • Mikola
    Mikola April 24 2013 21: 00 New
    +1
    as soon as I read to the phrase
    However, nothing of the kind happened: even during World War II, the leading naval powers continued the massive construction of super-battleships and cruisers.
    I realized who the author of the article smile

    1. The cruiser is not a replacement for either a battleship or an aircraft carrier

    2. The number of aircraft carriers laid down and built is clearly superior to the number of battleships. And the displacement of aircraft carriers surpassed the displacement of battleships in that war ...

    3. Well, why should an author who is mentally allergic to this type of ship torment himself so much, will be better at writing articles on other types of ships.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola April 24 2013 21: 08 New
      +1
      An example of a good article about aircraft carriers, the last of which I read, is - Reflections on the future of aircraft carriers Author Ryabov Kirill. There the facts are presented comprehensively without pulling out at the discretion of the "taste" of the author. And the comments were not based on the truthfulness of the facts brought by the author, but on conclusions from the facts.
      1. Delta
        Delta April 24 2013 22: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: Mikola
        An example of a good article about aircraft carriers, the last of which I read, is - Reflections on the future of aircraft carriers Author Ryabov Kirill. There the facts are presented comprehensively without pulling out at the discretion of the "taste" of the author. And the comments were not based on the truthfulness of the facts brought by the author, but on conclusions from the facts.

        So Kaptsov writes essays on free themes. No one bothers, why not exercise, from idleness. New Pikul. Although even Pikul, I remember, once admitted that fantasies should have a place and time. And Kaptsov not only twists history and freely uses technology (not to mention mistakes), but also famously, supposedly in a writer's way (he thinks so) invents thoughts, dialogues and actions of real or nonexistent people
        1. Mikola
          Mikola April 24 2013 23: 14 New
          +1
          It’s time to open the section on humor on topvar, the material is already enough)
    2. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 22: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikola
      Cruiser is not a replacement for either a battleship or an aircraft carrier

      Does anyone say the opposite?
      It's just that the role of aircraft carriers during WWII was greatly exaggerated. And in our time they have completely lost all meaning
      Quote: Mikola
      The number of aircraft carriers laid down and built is clearly superior to the number of battleships.

      Total Pacific War Zone Reached 14 Essexes
      14 x 35 thousand tons ~ half a million tons
      At the same time, they took an active part in the battles:
      - 2 North Caroline Lux
      - 4 South Dakota Lux
      - 4 lx type "Iowa"
      - 2 Alaska battle cruisers
      (we consider only new, newly built ships)
      In / and battleships ~ half a million tons

      Parity!

      43-centimeter door of the conning tower "New Jersey" BB-62 (type "Iowa")
      Compare the complexity of building a battleship with the construction of the aircraft carrier Essex
      1. Kars
        Kars April 24 2013 22: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Compare the complexity of building a battleship with the construction of the aircraft carrier Essex

        Yes, then it was easier to build aircraft carriers, and planes were worth a mere penny (compared to ships)
      2. Mikola
        Mikola April 24 2013 22: 31 New
        0
        In 1940, the construction of 11 Essex aircraft carriers was authorized, and another 13 were built during World War II. Total 24x (27 tons standard.
        33 3 tons complete) + the first heavy Midway strike aircraft carriers 42 pcs * (215 tons dry
        47 219 t standard 59 901 t full) + 9 pieces of the Independence type (10 662 t standard
        14 751 tons full), and there were also escorted up to 100 percent, well this is a trifle am . Remind me how many US built battleships and battlecruisers since 1940))))) Well stupid amerekosy really smile They were not familiar with your work and did not know that aircraft carriers are a dumb branch of the development of the fleet)))))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 00: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Mikola
          Remind me how many US built battleships and battlecruisers with 1940 years)))))

          Since 1940 year?
          - 9 battleships
          - 2 battlecruisers
          - 14 Baltimore heavy artillery cruisers
          - 7 heavy. cr. Oregon and Des Moines types
          .
          Missile ships will be considered?))
          Quote: Mikola
          9pcs of Independence type

          Remade from light cruisers
          In total, 9 aircraft carriers and 27 cruisers were built under the Cleveland project (1: 3)
      3. Mikola
        Mikola April 24 2013 22: 37 New
        +1
        And the Japanese, well, just ""?))) They took the Yamato class battleship into a Shinano aircraft carrier)))) And the whole war frantically strained to build aircraft carriers (like Taiho), and not battleships ... It seems to me that you served on Kuznetsov and forced you to scrub the deck there often (about 300m length, if anyone does not know), how else to explain your "love" for aircraft carriers smile smile smile
        1. Mikola
          Mikola April 24 2013 22: 42 New
          0
          And the Japanese, well, just "idiot"? censorship
        2. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 00: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Mikola
          They took the battleship class Yamato converted into an aircraft carrier Shinano

          Which died after 17 hours after the first exit to the sea)))
          Quote: Mikola
          And throughout the war, aircraft carriers (like Taiho) feverishly tried to build, not battleships ...

          Agonizing Japanese industry could build only the simplest aircraft carrier boxes. Who drowned like puppies
          19 June 1944 year, a few weeks after entry into service, "Taiho" was sunk by the American submarine "Albacore".
          Quote: Mikola
          forced to scrub the deck there often (about 300m length, if anyone does not know)

          Well, Zero-san? Failed to sink the battleship? Now take the mop and go)))
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 April 24 2013 21: 08 New
    +1
    I wonder why Kaptsov took it that if the Japanese had fuses, they would be able to interrupt a cloud of aircraft? Well, not 12 but 112 planes would be shot down, then what? A ship that is 100 times more expensive is still a bul-bul.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 24 2013 22: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Avenger711
      Well, not 12, but 112 planes would be shot down, then what?

      Deck Aviation Attack Chokes
      Quote: Avenger711
      A ship that is 100 times more expensive is still a bul-bul.

      Why did it happen? Most of the torpedo bombers destroyed during the attack

      The service of torpedo bombers is dangerous and difficult - a clumsy aircraft must accurately maintain course, altitude and speed at the time of the attack. No sharp maneuvers and height fluctuations: the Mark 13 torpedo should enter the water exactly at an angle of 20 degrees - otherwise it will break in half.

      An ideal target for anti-aircraft gunners. Especially in the presence of 40 mm automatic Bofors and projectiles with a radar fuse
      1. Mikola
        Mikola April 24 2013 22: 41 New
        0
        This is if some torpedo bombers attack) And when in a complex with diving bombardments and fighters, then the results were in Perch Harbor and the same drowned Yamato)))) Remind you of the text? You constantly distort the facts, to argue with your talent and your wife)))))))))
        1. Kars
          Kars April 24 2013 23: 00 New
          0
          ______________________
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol April 25 2013 09: 20 New
            0
            The myth of the battleship South Dakota

            In the official history of the battleship South Dakota, it is recorded that during the battle near the Santa Cruz Islands, 26 aircraft were shot down by fire of his anti-aircraft artillery (32 according to anti-aircraft gunners). Historians in their studies give slightly different figures. So John Lundstrom in his book gives the following data on downed Japanese aircraft: shot down by fire FOR; shot down by fighters; downed all
            fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, total
            during attacks on the Hornet compound 0, 4, 8, 12; 3, 7, 3, 13; 25
            during attacks on the connection of the Enterprise 0, 10, 3, 13; 0, 9, 7, 16; 29th


            In addition to the aircraft carrier and the South Dakota, the Enterprise compound included 2 cruisers and 8 destroyers. And according to Lundstrom, only 13 aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire of the entire compound, i.e. 12 anti-aircraft guns shot down 13 aircraft
        2. Santa Fe
          April 24 2013 23: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Mikola
          And when in a complex with diving bombardments and fighters, the results were

          And if in conjunction with the Mk.37 SLA (five inches), the Mk.51 POISO (Bofors), the Mk.14 POISO (Erlikons) and the anti-aircraft missiles with the radar fuse - the results will be as in the photo with the signal indicators of the battleship South Dakota (smiling guys in funny hats - count how many fingers wink )

          The Yankees sent two Japanese squadrons to the scrap and repelled the attack without loss on their part (battle near Santa Cruz Island, autumn of 1942)
          1. Mikola
            Mikola April 24 2013 23: 17 New
            0
            And again, because of the "stupidity", the Americans put the battleships on guard for aircraft carriers) Why read below the "directory"))))
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 24 2013 23: 03 New
    +3
    And in our time, they have completely lost all meaning.

    Stupidity is utter. I repeat again. There is nothing to do in the ocean without air support and cover for the fleet (both surface and underwater) in the ocean. Moreover, support and cover should be OPERATIONAL. And EFFICIENCY can be provided only by aircraft carriers. Therefore, the fleet must be BALANCED, as aircraft carriers and ships of other classes have interdependent and mutually complementary systems. Everything else is from the evil one.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 24 2013 23: 32 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      nothing to do in the ocean

      he has nothing to do there anymore. to fight with whales? or to intercept the trans-Atlantic convoys? People live on land.
  • Mikola
    Mikola April 24 2013 23: 39 New
    0
    and there are minerals and edibles in the sea. 70% of the surface is oceans. All leading developed countries have access to the sea and contain a fleet. And on land, besides people, many animals still live, but no one of them walks along the seas, and they already have enough. Today is a night of humor about the fleet?
    1. Kars
      Kars April 24 2013 23: 45 New
      -3
      Quote: Mikola
      and there are minerals and edibles in the sea. 70% of the surface of the oceans

      the term neutral waters is familiar:? territorial? economic zone?
      Quote: Mikola
      Today is a night of humor about the fleet

      Are you a clown? If so, you know better.

      It would be interesting to know about the latest military clashes 500-1000 km from the nearest land. Do not share?
      1. Mikola
        Mikola April 25 2013 00: 04 New
        0
        I will answer a counter question - Who controls the coast, the army or the fleet?)))

        With such questions, all your writings will be quickly multiplied by zero))))))
        1. Kars
          Kars April 25 2013 00: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Mikola
          It would be interesting to know about the latest military clashes 500-1000 km from the nearest land. Do not share?

          So the failure to give an example?
          Quote: Mikola
          Who controls the coast, army or navy?))

          where does your imagination shore?
          Quote: spravochnik
          nothing to do in the ocean.

          Quote: Mikola
          there are minerals and edibles in the sea.

          And now it’s thinking about the control of the coast. The border guards control it.
          1. Mikola
            Mikola April 25 2013 00: 16 New
            0
            It would be interesting to know about the latest military clashes 500-1000 km from the nearest land. Do not share?
            You probably do not know that one of the main tasks of the fleet is to control the coast. This is why naval battles are “close” near the shore)))) And when setting “smart” questions you want to get a “smart” answer so that the defendant is stupid?)))))) This style is called DEMAGOGY)))) ) learn materiel am
            1. Kars
              Kars April 25 2013 00: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Mikola
              This style is called DEMAGOGY))))) learn materiel

              Well, in demagoguery, I can’t overact you.
              Quote: Mikola
              one of the main tasks of the fleet is to control the coast

              So why did you get the ocean? From the coast, aviation flies very well, and only the USA can carry out trans-Kensk operations, or the former empire over which the sun does not set - but only against the underdeveloped country.

              so, in principle, nobody really needs aircraft carriers. a couple of countries have them. like Brazil had a battleship at the beginning of the 20th century)))) and everything else is demagogy. You can even say that in modern conditions they are utterly useless, especially by the criterion of efficiency-cost .
              1. Santa Fe
                April 25 2013 00: 34 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                as Brazil had a battleship at the beginning of the 20 century))))

                The Russian Empire also had a battleship)))
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 25 2013 09: 05 New
                  -1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The Russian Empire also had a battleship)))

                  As many as seven, but RI and its backward industry lost the struggle for supremacy at sea at the end of the 19th century, and the results of the Russo-Japanese War and Revolution collapsed.
              2. Mikola
                Mikola April 25 2013 00: 36 New
                +1
                You probably don’t know that Brazil now has an aircraft carrier (or I don’t remember aircraft carriers) and is negotiating with France to build new ones. According to some kind of "strange" tradition, all maritime powers, even seemingly like the inland sea like Italy, have aircraft carriers. For the same reason, casting doubt on the presence of Russian aircraft carriers is a stupid and harmful idea. The efficiency-cost criterion depends on the tasks assigned to the fleet. If you set incorrect tasks for an aircraft carrier, then you get its inefficient use.
                1. Mikola
                  Mikola April 25 2013 00: 48 New
                  +1
                  An example of an incorrect task for an aircraft carrier is this article, which examines the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier in near artillery.
                  The next second, giant columns of water shot up between American escort aircraft carriers - the battleships Yamato, Nagato, Haruna, Congo, the cruisers Haguro, Tuka'i, Kumano, Suzuya, Tikuma, Tone, Yahagi and Noshiro, with the support of 11 destroyers, opened heavy storm artillery at the United States Navy. Good morning, America!


                  or the death of Yamato is not according to the rules))) In this example, the tactics of using aircraft carriers are questioned because of its effectiveness - the cart is ahead of the cart
                  Eight against one! Scientifically speaking, the experiment was conducted incorrectly. The balance of the interacting components was disturbed, the number of American aircraft carriers exceeded all reasonable limits. Therefore, the results of the experiment can not be considered reliable.
                2. Santa Fe
                  April 25 2013 00: 52 New
                  0
                  Quote: Mikola
                  You probably don’t know that Brazil now has an aircraft carrier

                  Sao Paulo - Formerly French "Clemenceau" (1963 g.)
                  Air Group: A dozen A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft (50-X development aircraft)

                  Quote: Mikola
                  If you set incorrect tasks for an aircraft carrier, then you get its inefficient use.

                  An example of a correct task for an aircraft carrier? For example, for the Brazilian "Sao Paulo")))
                  1. Mikola
                    Mikola April 25 2013 00: 56 New
                    0
                    an example of a correct task for an aircraft carrier? For example, for the Brazilian "Sao Paulo"
                    The very fact of his presence in the fleet, an analogue of the fact of the existence of your beloved Tirpitz. Children's question))
                    1. Santa Fe
                      April 25 2013 01: 02 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Mikola
                      analogue is the fact of the existence of your beloved Tirpitz

                      Tirpitz fettered the entire British fleet in the North Atlantic
                      Who is the old trough called Sao Paulo forged?
                      1. Mikola
                        Mikola April 25 2013 01: 04 New
                        0
                        Brazil’s neighbors with whom it has territorial claims. Do you notice anything similar with Russia?)))))
                      2. Santa Fe
                        April 25 2013 01: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: Mikola
                        Brazil’s neighbors with whom it has territorial claims.

                        what does the trough with a dozen flying rubbish matter if the Brazilian Air Force has three hundred combat aircraft
                        Quote: Mikola
                        The efficiency-cost criterion depends on the tasks assigned to the fleet. If you set incorrect tasks for an aircraft carrier, then you get its inefficient use.

                        So what is the correct task for the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier?
                        Quote: Mikola
                        Do you notice anything similar with Russia?)))))

                        no
                      3. Mikola
                        Mikola April 25 2013 01: 27 New
                        0
                        Hmm, if not a stronger word to write. You are incorrectly unaware of the history of South American wars))) There territorial claims were resolved at sea, with the blocking of trade .... Go to the Brazilian fleet website where the tasks of the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier are painted smile
                      4. Santa Fe
                        April 25 2013 01: 33 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Mikola
                        You are incorrectly not aware of the history of South American wars))) There territorial claims were resolved at sea, with the blocking of trade ....

                        drug trafficking?))
                        Quote: Mikola
                        Go to the site of the Brazilian fleet there are painted the tasks of the aircraft carrier "Sao Paulo"

                        Do not share the link?
          2. Kars
            Kars April 25 2013 09: 02 New
            -1
            Quote: Mikola
            You probably don’t know that Brazil now has an aircraft carrier

            So I'm just talking about this)))))
            Quote: Kars
            .pair of countries has them. approximately how Brazil had a battleship in the beginning of the 20th century))))

            Quote: Mikola
            Brazil's neighbors with whom it has territorial claims. Do you notice anything similar with Russia?))))

            Sorry, but it’s now clear that you’re a clown anyway))))
            1. Mikola
              Mikola April 25 2013 12: 32 New
              0
              so, in principle, nobody really needs aircraft carriers. a couple of countries have them. like Brazil had a battleship at the beginning of the 20th century)))) and everything else is demagogy. You can even say that in modern conditions they are utterly useless, especially by the criterion of efficiency-cost .


              1. Where does your text indicate that Brazil has an aircraft carrier
              2. You have an aircraft carrier and a battleship written as unnecessary ships.

              I pointed out to you about their usefulness and what in Brazil both of them, for all time, are considered necessary by the fleet, is that a CLOWN?

              3.
              Brazil's neighbors with whom it has territorial claims. Do you notice anything similar with Russia?)))) Sorry, but now it’s clear that you are all the same a clown))
              And what does the word clown refute from you territorial disputes between Russia and its neighbors?)))) Your DEMAGOGY is obvious.
              1. Kars
                Kars April 25 2013 13: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Mikola
                1. Where does your text indicate that Brazil has an aircraft carrier

                And where does it say that Brazil does not have an aircraft carrier? It’s just one of those countries,
                and will you really argue that Brazil had a dreadnought))))
                Quote: Mikola
                2. You have an aircraft carrier and a battleship written as unnecessary ships.

                for Brazil, Argentina, they were needed only for prestige, and as history has shown, they are utterly useless. Even though Brazil entered the Second World War)))
                Quote: Mikola
                He pointed out to you about their usefulness and what in Brazil both of them, for all time, are considered necessary by the fleet, is that a CLOWN?

                Have you indicated something? Don’t mess up)))
                Quote: Mikola
                And what does the word clown refute from you territorial disputes between Russia and its neighbors?)))
                the word clown is used as a definition of your nonsense. especially against the background of the brothelness of the land borders that Brazil is the Russian Federation, and finding .. neighbors .. not through the seas and OCEans, but through the control track))), of course, urgently need to build aircraft carriers against Japan Russia) )))
  • Santa Fe
    April 25 2013 00: 19 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Mikola
    They took the battleship class Yamato converted into an aircraft carrier Shinano

    Which died after 17 hours after the first exit to the sea)))
    Quote: Mikola
    And throughout the war, aircraft carriers (like Taiho) feverishly tried to build, not battleships ...

    Agonizing Japanese industry could build only the simplest aircraft carrier boxes. Which drowned from one torpedo
    (On 19 on June 1944, a few weeks after commissioning, the Taiho was sunk by the American submarine Albacore.)
    Quote: Mikola
    forced to scrub the deck there often (about 300m length, if anyone does not know)

    Well, Zero-san? Failed to sink the battleship? Now take the mop and go)))
    1. Mikola
      Mikola April 25 2013 00: 22 New
      0
      And why the death of an aircraft carrier from one torpedo and its quality to the development strategy of the fleet?) So all the same, you again scrub the deck))))))))))))
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 00: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: spravochnik
    nothing to do in the ocean

    he has nothing to do there anymore. to fight with whales? or to intercept the trans-Atlantic convoys? People live on land.


    If you follow this logic, the fleet is generally not needed. Only other countries will adhere to this principle.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 00: 49 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      If you follow this logic, the fleet is generally not needed.

      This is not about the entire fleet, but only about one of its systems called the “aircraft carrier”

      There is no evidence of the need for a floating airfield in the 21st century.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 01: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: spravochnik
    If you follow this logic, the fleet is generally not needed.

    This is not about the entire fleet, but only about one of its systems called the “aircraft carrier”

    There is no evidence of the need for a floating airfield in the 21st century.


    I don’t even want to specifically answer, see above.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 01: 17 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      I don’t even want to specifically answer, see above.

      Oh really? Once again, the tale of "efficiency" and "need air cover of the submarine fleet"?)))
      1. Mikola
        Mikola April 25 2013 01: 28 New
        0
        You scored again how the Doenitz fleet died ...
        1. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 01: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Mikola
          You scored again how the Doenitz fleet died ...

          U-bots spent most of the time in the water position.

          What does this have to do with modern submarines?
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 01: 35 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: spravochnik
    I don’t even want to specifically answer, see above.

    Oh really? Once again, the tale of "efficiency" and "need air cover of the submarine fleet"?)))


    One of the main opponents of the submarine is base and carrier-based anti-submarine aviation. How will you counteract it. You will fly from the shore. A range is enough, but time. While flying, from your submarines only bubbles will remain on the surface.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 01: 39 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      One of the main opponents of the submarine is base and carrier-based anti-submarine aviation. How will you counteract it.

      submarine stealth
      1. Waterfall
        Waterfall April 25 2013 02: 33 New
        0
        Stealth in what?
        1. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 03: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Wasserfall
          Stealth in what?

          Stealth is the main weapon of the submarine.

          Of course, there is always a chance to be discovered and then the end will come. War is always a game with death.
    2. Kars
      Kars April 25 2013 09: 10 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      in of the main opponents of the submarine - base and carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft. How will you counteract it.

      And why then do you need submarines at all, if your aircraft should fly over them? Isn’t it easier then to perform the tasks of nuclear submarines by air?
      And strategic missile carriers may not withdraw from territorial waters.

      I imagine - they decided to send nuclear submarines to the Gulf of Mexico, and cover aviation should fly over it from above)))))
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 01: 41 New
    -1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Mikola
    You scored again how the Doenitz fleet died ...

    U-bots spent most of the time in the water position.

    What does this have to do with modern submarines?


    Yes, such a staunch and unbending adherent of his position, even historical experience is not a decree. Then there were other means of anti-submarine warfare. Look at things realistically. It is useful.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 01: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: spravochnik
      Then other means of anti-submarine warfare were

      Tin, spending 90% of the time on the surface (or under the snorkel)
      And a nuclear-powered ship, capable of not appearing for months on the surface - things are incomparable in principle

      WWII experience has nothing to do with it
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 01: 43 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: spravochnik
    One of the main opponents of the submarine is base and carrier-based anti-submarine aviation. How will you counteract it.

    submarine stealth


    Kremlin dreamer and Wells, which Herbert in one bottle.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik April 25 2013 01: 57 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: spravochnik
    Then other means of anti-submarine warfare were

    Tin, spending 90% of the time on the surface (or under the snorkel)
    And a nuclear-powered ship, capable of not appearing for months on the surface - things are incomparable in principle

    WWII experience has nothing to do with it


    Deck screw Avenger and jet base Poseidon or deck Viking. Pass over your submarine with a magnetometer. What will you hide behind. A copper basin. This is not even funny. I see no reason in further discussion. Good night.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 02: 09 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      or deck viking

      retired 10 years ago
      Quote: spravochnik
      Deck screw Avenger and jet base Poseidon

      In terms of detecting submarines in the surface position, their capabilities are the same
      But guaranteed to detect nuclear submarines at a depth neither one nor the other is capable of
    2. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 03: 32 New
      0
      Quote: spravochnik
      What will you hide behind. A copper basin.

      Allocate each boat to a personal aircraft carrier wink


      Spravochnik, you seem to have a poor idea of ​​what a submarine is and what its tasks are.
      SECURITY. This is the whole point of the existence of a subfusion. Who is able to provide stealth to the boat? Only herself. The elusive and unusually secretive naval weapon - it does not need any kind of cover and providing actions, the meaning of the boat is to crawl to where ordinary ships (planes) cannot pass. Seep through all the anti-submarine defense cordons. Hack anti-submarine protection. Deal a mortal blow to the very heart of the enemy. Caution. Silently. Stealthily.

      Of course, there is always a chance to be discovered. A boat that has lost stealth is a sunken boat. She has no other means of counteraction. This is called war. Fatal risk. The game of death.

      What you are talking about (knocking down Orions and Poseidons) is just a beautiful fairy tale. You can’t put a personal aircraft carrier to every submarine. A nearby carrier-carrying ship with an escort is an extra noise, a de-masking factor, close attention, and a “bear service” for a modern submarine. And in general, why, in this case, dive under water if there is a whole aircraft carrier squadron nearby))

      ps / Even despite the enormous progress in the field of anti-submarine weapons, it’s much more difficult to detect (and most importantly to escort) a modern nuclear submarine than a Kriegsmarine boat. The German U-bot spent 90% of the time on the surface, i.e. de facto was not a "submarine" but a "diving" boat. Boats really went under water only with the advent of nuclear reactors. And from that moment on, two classes of ships appeared on the seas: submarines and targets
      1. Kars
        Kars April 25 2013 09: 15 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Allocate each boat to a personal aircraft carrier

        Not then you need to build extra ..my boat ..)))))
        1. Canep
          Canep April 25 2013 13: 48 New
          0
          Where to read more about this ship? If the aircraft and the ship are drawn on the same scale, then I think it's time for someone to heal.
          1. Kars
            Kars April 25 2013 14: 10 New
            0
            Quote: Canep
            If the aircraft and the ship are drawn on the same scale

            Better look at the missiles, the longest is the SS-20 Satan))))

            On an alternative story a couple of days ago posted
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 25 2013 03: 33 New
    0
    Again there is a juxtaposition of ships of different types and tasks. An aircraft carrier is the eyes and ears of a group of ships and very operational eyes at the same time) It is also a long arm in battle, as well as a means for guaranteed the use of weapons of the remaining members of the group (cruisers, destroyers) at full range (target designation). Commander aug, is able to combine and have an advantage in the initiative, because he is well aware of the tactical situation for many hundreds of kilometers around. As for the battleships, my opinion is that the age of armor on ships is still coming back + the cheapness and effectiveness of large artillery when working along the coast, say with the support of the landing.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 03: 38 New
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Aircraft carrier is the eyes and ears of a group of ships and very operational eyes

      And how did the Japanese squadron of 23 pennants appear in the most vulnerable place of the US Navy?)))

      Wow. There were six aircraft carriers - and everyone overlooked))))
      Quote: barbiturate
      Commander Aug, able to combine and have an advantage in the initiative, for he is well aware of the tactical situation for hundreds of kilometers around

      Children's stories began.
      Try to strike with the help of the AUG, for example, Saudi Arabia))) Or attack India, if you’ve completely lost your temper
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 25 2013 06: 30 New
        0
        How overlooked? The battle lasted for four days, at the same time half a dozen large groups were at sea, not counting individual squadrons, flotillas of torpedo boats, etc. Plus landing, rain, night. The distance between the groups exceeded 500 miles (so 500 planes to be thrown into battle simultaneously Americans could not) The battles were fought almost permanently. When analyzing the losses, the Yankees considered the Kurita fleet destroyed. In fairness, note that not only deck, but also ground aviation, ships, submarines, did not find the enemy in a timely manner! Including and japanese! Which could not defeat the most vulnerable spot of the Americans.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 25 2013 03: 54 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And how, in the most vulnerable place of the US Navy grouping, a Japanese squadron of 23 pennants appeared?))) Wow. There were six aircraft carriers - and everyone overlooked))))


    It’s generally if everything was like that) and so, you see, it wasn’t in the most vulnerable that appeared, if the result turned out to be the same as that of those of those years, there were no such means of detection as now, they just inspected the sector at the wrong time (then there were only the eyes and ears of the pilots ), where did the Japanese come from. This is the most common explanation, always something happens because of something, and you don’t mention at all how many cases there were detection and striking at the enemy with the help of Augs.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Children's fairy tales began. Try to strike with the help of the AUG, for example, Saudi Arabia))) Or attack India, if you’ve completely lost your temper


    Are you an adequate person? or sit out there? do not attribute nonsense to people with your nonsense))
    Where do you see in my post words about conquering countries and continents with the help of Augs? I just said that the group of ships, which includes an aircraft carrier, at the given time (our time, and half a century ago) has huge advantages over the same group of ships, without an aircraft carrier and 70-80 combat aircraft of various types. What is Saudi Arabia? what is india? what are we talking about ??)) if you drank all night, then go and get some sleep, and I went to work, there will be an opportunity, I will unsubscribe if they don’t load what) Just don’t write nonsense, huh?
  • Backfire
    Backfire April 25 2013 06: 01 New
    +2
    The author begins with a false promise - no one declares the aircraft carriers to be the armament of a certain Vunedvafly. An aircraft carrier is just a ship, and a main ship, in a well-balanced fleet / strike force.

    An aircraft carrier is just a means of aviation. What aviation can do, for example, we saw during the Falkland conflict, when subsonic attack aircraft tore the British fleet like a tusik warmer. And if not for 80% of unexploded bombs! then the outcome of that war would be different. At the same time, Argentina had only 5 Exozet rockets!

    As for the powerful armor of the battleships and the "weak" head part of modern anti-ship ammunition. If a country starts building a battleship, this is a few years at least. During this time, they will have time to make armor-piercing, cumulative, etc. ammunition that can be used from aircraft 10 times. And that is why now there are no such b / ps - for them there is no purpose.

    In the considered example of 1944, the author acts incorrectly giving the plot taken out of context. What happened there. The Americans "bought" the Japanese "bait" from the compound in which there were all Japanese aircraft carriers. The Japanese implemented a very beautiful plan - to divert the main forces of the American Navy, primarily heavy attack aircraft carriers to this “bait”. And at that time, “from the flank” another connection was supposed to break through to the American landing ships, “escort” aircraft carriers, supply vessels.

    The Japanese plan at this stage was brilliantly successful.
    If you try to say figuratively - a steel blade bypassing the armor entered the soft underbelly.

    On the American "escort" and "auxiliary" aircraft carriers were high-explosive bombs and there was absolutely no armor-piercing. The element of surprise was completely on the side of the Japanese - the American ships providing the landing were fully confident that the main forces of the fleet would not let the japs ​​close to them. Nonetheless, even the impromptuness of the American Navy will make it possible to disrupt the seemingly inevitable rout from the “invincible” battleships, etc. art. ships. Who cares about this fight and generally about the war in the Pacific Ocean - there is a wonderful book by Pereslegin: "Pacific Premiere."

    Conclusion - you need a balanced fleet. The ocean fleet cannot be without aircraft carriers.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 25 2013 16: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      Aircraft carrier is just a ship, but the main ship

      In this discussion begins)))
      When did the aircraft carriers imagine that they were the main ships?
      Quote: Backfire
      Aircraft carrier is just a means of aviation

      Only this is an inefficient, overly complex and wasteful way.
      The US Air Force has hundreds of air bases around the world - modern jet aircraft can quickly cover any land area and oceans. Without any floating airfields.

      The fleet fulfills its specific tasks. Air cover is the responsibility of the air force.
      Quote: Backfire
      when the subsonic stormtroopers tore the British fleet like an Acetic warmer

      how so? The British had as many as two carrier ships?)))
      and the Args have just the Rio Grande land base and the old Skyhawk attack aircraft
      Quote: Backfire
      If you try to say figuratively - a steel blade bypassing the armor entered the soft underbelly.

      this is especially funny given the balance of power in the Philippine operation.
      For every Japanese ship, there were 10 American ones. Dozens of aircraft carriers, 1200 planes ... and, nevertheless, a squadron of 23 pennants went to the center of the American group.
      Quote: Backfire
      The element of surprise was completely on the side of the Japanese - the American ships providing the landing were fully confident that the main forces of the fleet would not let the japas close to them.

      Horrible))))
      Quote: Backfire
      Nevertheless, even the impromptu of the American Navy

      the death of three destroyers.
      supported by 500 aircraft and ground base
      + Admiral Takeo Kurita's night bath
      Quote: Backfire
      Conclusion - you need a balanced fleet.

      Compared to what? Georgian Navy? Or the US Navy?
      And for what?))
      1. Delta
        Delta April 25 2013 16: 56 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The US Air Force has hundreds of air bases around the world - modern jet aircraft can quickly cover any land area and oceans. Without any floating airfields.

        Have you already applied to the Pentagon? what did you say?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Conclusion - you need a balanced fleet.
        Compared to what? Georgian Navy? Or the US Navy?
        And for what?))

        plagiarism. Or are you there with Kars in the same apartment?))))))))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 25 2013 17: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          Have you already applied to the Pentagon? what did you say?

          What is coming to reduce the US Navy
          Quote: Delta
          Or are you there with Kars in the same apartment?

          Look at the flags and don't ask silly questions anymore
          1. Delta
            Delta April 25 2013 17: 44 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Have you already applied to the Pentagon? what did you say?
            What is coming to reduce the US Navy

            That's great. Show off your letter. Put a copy here, I beg you
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 25 2013 06: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: Backfire
    The author begins with a false promise - no one declares the aircraft carriers to be the armament of a certain Vunedvafly. An aircraft carrier is just a ship, and a main ship, in a well-balanced fleet / strike force. An aircraft carrier is just a means of aviation. What aviation can do, for example, we saw during the Falkland conflict, when subsonic attack aircraft tore the British fleet like a tusik warmer. And if not for 80% of unexploded bombs! then the outcome of that war would be different. At the same time, Argentina had only 5 Exozet missiles! As for the powerful armor of the battleships and the "weak" head part of modern anti-ship ammunition. If a country starts building a battleship, this is a few years at least. During this time, they will have time to make armor-piercing, cumulative, etc. ammunition that can be used from aircraft 10 times. And that is why now there are no such b / ps - for them there is no purpose. In the considered example of 1944, the author acts incorrectly giving the plot taken out of context. What happened there. The Americans "bought" the Japanese "bait" from the compound in which there were all Japanese aircraft carriers. The Japanese implemented a very beautiful plan - to divert the main forces of the American Navy, primarily heavy attack aircraft carriers to this “bait”. And at that time, “from the flank” another connection was supposed to break through to the American landing ships, “escort” aircraft carriers, supply vessels. The Japanese plan at this stage was brilliantly successful. If you try to say figuratively - a steel blade bypassing the armor entered the soft underbelly. On the American "escort" and "auxiliary" aircraft carriers were high-explosive bombs and there was absolutely no armor-piercing. The element of surprise was completely on the side of the Japanese - the American ships providing the landing were fully confident that the main forces of the fleet would not let the japas close to them. Nonetheless, even the impromptuness of the American Navy will make it possible to disrupt the seemingly inevitable rout from the “invincible” battleships, etc. art. ships. Who cares about this fight and generally about the war in the Pacific Ocean - there is a wonderful book by Pereslegin: "Pacific Premiere." Conclusion - you need a balanced fleet. The ocean fleet cannot be without aircraft carriers.


    well, clearly and in part, otherwise you write about an aircraft carrier as a strong ship as part of a group and about the obvious advantages of an ocean fleet with aug, and in response, "attack India"))
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 25 2013 09: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Kavtorang
    It was difficult to examine Tom, your beloved, Clancy and at the level of a muddy drop.


    I'm also not happy with T. Clancy. After reading his book, “The Red Storm Rises,” I was anathematized and burned.
  • iinverse
    iinverse 2 May 2013 17: 50 New
    0
    I read this opus, as well as discussions in the comments, I want to express my opinion on the article / comments.

    To begin with, the author shamelessly distorts and closes his eyes to many other factors / events.
    For example, on the basis of his “analysis” (with minimal alterations) of the episode of the fighting in Leyte Gulf, we can easily conclude that the destroyers (and in the meaning of the auxiliary squadron, deprived of all the capabilities of a “modern destroyer”, which is at the same level as possible with cruisers) make use of a linear fleet useless.
    Meanwhile, the author makes, intentionally or unknowingly, several gross errors:
    1. Does not mention that the extreme mobility and versatility of the "floating airfields" allowed Japan to establish control over the vast territories of East Asia and Oceania in the shortest possible time, actually stuffed with allied bases, in which there were ships, aviation and ground forces. The main advantage of the aircraft carriers was the ability to carry out extremely geographically dispersed operations (the daily range of the aircraft carrier’s operation allows it to carry out operations in areas separated by ~ 2500 miles) and the possibility of universal application - what role did the aircraft carriers take upon themselves during the Second World War: attacks on sea and coastal targets, gaining air supremacy, anti-submarine operations, supporting land and landing operations, guarding convoys, transporting goods and aircraft, etc. Not a single class of ships is capable of solving such a wide range of tasks with such quick retooling for the necessary task.
  • iinverse
    iinverse 2 May 2013 17: 50 New
    0
    (Continued)

    2. Making a big bet that, they say, the Americans with their aircraft carriers “slammed” the Japanese ship’s formation. There is a very simple explanation for this. The “divan strategists” (and the author is also among them) are not aware of the confusion that is happening on a huge stretch of intense military operations that are managed by several departments, between which there is not only a bunch of operational friction (misunderstanding of intelligence, poor interaction, etc.). etc., etc.), as well as political differences. If such "strategists" naively believe that everything is like in a computer game, where you can select units and easily move them to reveal fog of war, then let them start at least by studying notes and memoirs of the direct participants in the events. Meanwhile, even experienced scouts often confused the types of ships - everything that was larger than the fishing dzhonka, just in case, was recorded as an enemy warship - in this way the tanker with a light hand became an attack aircraft carrier, and the couple of destroyers accompanying it became a combination of ships, presumably battleships and cruisers up to eight. Given that only ~ 250 warships acted on the theater of operations (this does not include civilian and merchant ships, submarines, support ships and landing forces), one can imagine what a mess was going on there. But in reality, the causes of the "loss under the nose" of the Japanese compound are more prosaic and, like all major miscalculations, is an overlap of many errors on both sides. This is described in more detail (although somewhat emotionally and with the subjective conclusions of the author) in the memoirs of Sherman, who commanded the OG on this theater.
    Additionally, the author mentions that, "be in the place of escort aircraft real carriers such as the" Essex "", thereby, as if forcing to recall a joke about who grandmother would be if she had eggs. If the Essexes were in place, the operational situation would have been completely different - perhaps then the Japanese would have run into any aircraft carriers at all - we understand perfectly well that "if" Halsey was not hunting for the distracting formation of Ozawa, but If Essexes were grouped in the place desired for the author, then Kurita would have got the same way as Ozawa, and much earlier than the events of Fr. Samar took place.
    3. Colorfully describing the episode of the destruction of "Yamato", the author here also finds something to cling to - they say that the Americans attacked with superior forces and tra-la-la and three rubles. Let it be known to the author that during the war exactly all the resources that are at hand and which can be used — if the Americans have aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers and a motorboat with a machine gun at their disposal — are used, a plan will be drawn up to counter the enemy using aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers and a motor boat with a machine gun. No one will strive for equal power just to make it easier for “couch strategists” to argue about those things that they have never seen.
    But why the author carefully circumvented the flooding of the “Prince of Wales” and “Ripals” with only ~ 80 aircraft remains a mystery. But on the "Welsh" was both a radar that detects air targets at a distance of ~ 60 miles, and locators to control anti-aircraft fire. In addition, the ships went in a warrant with security, only planes attacked them, there were no other external factors.
  • Alex
    Alex 22 September 2013 17: 22 New
    +2
    A small digression.
    In summer camps, we often hold tournaments in the Sea Battle. Well, after that, no matter how the conversation about the fleet arises. And the most traditional question is "Which ship is the strongest?"

    As you know, the most difficult questions are from children. And really, which one? The simplest and most “beautiful” (purely outwardly, and not in terms of suitability and logic) answer is, of course, a battleship. The most confirmed course of the war (mainly in the Pacific Ocean) is, of course, an aircraft carrier. And in fact?

    According to the episodes, such a picture looms. During WWII, in the “fist fight" LK had no opponents. Should he get close to the distance of his all-devastating weapons, and ...
    The aircraft carrier, in contrast to him, has “long arms” that allow him to “grab” the enemy’s throat long before he approaches.

    What is the result? LK for safe approach to the AB requires a powerful air defense (whether you own, escort AB, cruisers and air defense frigates - it doesn’t matter). In order to defend the enemy from breaking into "close combat", serious cover in the face of heavy artillery ships is needed. In other words, the situation is somewhat reminiscent of the Roman "turtle" against the Parthian cavalry. Well, or a hybrid of a mole and a rabbit: the animal does not see anything, but if it finds someone ...

    So personally it seems to me that each ship should be used in accordance with the intended task, the nature of the theater of operations and enemy forces. In the end, no one compares the power of tanks and aircraft or infantry and artillery - they all do not exclude, but mutually complement and reinforce each other. And the commander / naval commander’s talent just manifests itself in the competent use of his weapons.