Military Review

Cruisers project 68-bis

43
In accordance with the decision on the first ten-year post-war program of military shipbuilding, the construction of light cruisers was provided. As a prototype of the new light cruiser project, the light, according to the then classification of the Navy ships, light cruiser pr.68K was selected, which in turn was created on the basis of the project 68 ship developed before the Great Patriotic War. The prewar program of the large sea and ocean fleet (1938-1942) by the end of 1942 it was planned to build 5 light cruisers pr. 68 (a total of 17 units were to be laid). The first four ships of this project were laid in 1939, the fifth - a year later. They were finally completed at the end of the 40s, taking into account the experience of the war, according to the so-called “adjusted” project 68K. The first designer of the 68K project was first appointed A.S. Savichev, and since 1947 - N.A. Kiselev.


Lead - "Chapaev" - became part of the Navy in the autumn of 1949. Soon the fleet and the rest were taken. Simultaneously with the completion of the ships of the pre-war projects, scientific and practical work was continued on these years to create new generation warships, in which even the experience of war and everything new that post-war science and production could provide were taken into account. In part, they tried to take this into account in the new cruiser of the project 68bis, which was considered the second series of cruisers 68K.

A.S. Savichev became the chief designer of this ship, and the captain of 1 rank D.I. Kushchev became the main observer from the Navy.

Compared with its prototype (68K), it was distinguished by a fully welded body, an extended forecastle and a reinforced anti-aircraft weaponry. Strengthening weapons and protection, improved habitability, increased autonomy (30 days) and cruising range (up to 9000 miles) resulted in an increase in the total displacement to almost 17 000 tons.



To protect the vital parts of the ship in battle, traditional booking was used: counter-missile for the citadel, towers of the main caliber and the conning tower; ballistic and bulletproof - combat posts of the upper deck and superstructures. Used mainly homogeneous armor. For the first time the welding of thick ship armor was mastered, while she herself was fully integrated into the ship's structures.

The thickness of the armor used in these constructions was: onboard - 100-mm, bow-beam - 120-mm, stern -100-mm, lower deck - 50-mm.
Constructive underwater protection against torpedo and mine weapons The enemy included, in addition to the traditional double bottom, a system of side compartments (for storing liquid cargo) and longitudinal bulkheads. The location of the service and residential premises practically differed little from that taken on cruisers, 68K.

As the main caliber on ships pr. 68bis, four advanced three-gun artillery systems MK-5-bis (gun B-38) were used.

Cruisers project 68-bis


At the end of 50-s, the control system was finalized, which allowed firing the main caliber at aerial targets, using the control system of the universal cruiser caliber.

The gun B-38 in the museum "Vladivostok fortress"


The universal caliber was represented by six paired stabilized installations CM-5-1 (later installed CM-5-1bis).

100-mm universal CM-5-1bis.


Anti-aircraft guns are represented by sixteen B-11 machines (later installed B-11М).

ZU B-11M in the museum "Vladivostok fortress"


An important feature of the cruisers of this project is the presence of special artillery radar stations in addition to the optical means of targeting guns at the target. The effective combat use of main-caliber artillery was provided by the Lightning AC-68bis A shooting system. The mine-torpedo armament of the ships included two 533-mm five-pipe protruding deck torpedo tubes installed at the spardek, and their control system PUTS “Stalingrad-2T-68bis”, coupled with a special torpedo radar station. On deck, the cruiser of this project could take over 100 shipboard mine mines. Ships of this type were also equipped with modern for that time navigation and radio equipment, communications.

The ship power plant of the 68bis cruisers in general did not differ from the power plant of the ships of the 68K. True, several managed to increase the power at full speed, bringing it to 118100 HP.

Giving a general assessment of the ship, it can be noted that he was not the best representative of his class. According to its main characteristics, it was inferior to ships built during WWII. So, surpassing the US Navy lightweight cruiser “Cleveland” in the ultimate range of 152-mm guns, the 68bis was booked worse than 1.5, especially on the deck, which is essential when conducting combat at long distances. Our ship couldn’t actually carry out effective fire from 152-mm guns due to the lack of necessary control systems, and at smaller distances the Kpivland-type cruiser had the superiority (152-mm guns were faster, the number of universal 127-mm more guns - 8 on one side against our 6 guns (100-mm). Obsolete at the beginning of the 50's. The power plant of the 68bis cruiser with low steam parameters and boilers with fan blast to the boiler rooms, led to an increase in displacement 1.3 times compared to Cleveland (with the same cruising range). A major drawback of the entire national medium-caliber artillery was the fact that with separate loading of guns with 120-180-mm caliber they used cartridges without shells. This made it possible to shoot, if necessary, with incomplete charges (shooting at the shore or unprotected targets at small and medium distances), increasing the survivability of the guns, but did not make it possible to simplify loading and, consequently, increase the rate of fire.

In addition, the use of sleeves is always safer compared to a purely cranky charging.

In fact, the cruiser pr. 68bis fully responded to the purpose of the first post-war shipbuilding program - revitalizing the shipbuilding industry and educating seafarers. The main purpose of this ship was to protect battleships and heavy cruisers from attacks by destroyers, cover attacks from destroyers and torpedo boats, fire work on the shore, as well as independent actions on enemy communications.


The head cruiser pr.68bis, called "Sverdlov", was laid at the Baltic shipyard 15 in October 1949, launched on July 5 1950 and entered into service 15 in May 1952 (only 6 units were built at this factory). 11 - 18.06.1953. Sverdlov took part in the international naval parade on Portsmouth's Spithead raid on the occasion of the coronation of the British Queen Elizabeth II, where his crew demonstrated excellent maritime proficiency. All crew members were awarded a special commemorative badge, which depicted the silhouette of the cruiser Sverdlov. 12 — 17.10.1955 — a return visit to Portsmouth. 20 - 25.07.1956 paid a visit to Rotterdam (Holland), and after the re-activation of 5 - 9.10.1973, to Gdynia (Poland). 17 - 22.04.1974, a detachment of Soviet ships (the cruiser "Sverdlov", the destroyer "Resourceful" and a submarine) under the command of Rear Admiral V.I. Akimov made an official friendly visit to Algeria. 21 — 26.06.1974 paid a visit to Cherbourg (France); 27.06-1.07.1975 - in Gdynia;
5-9.10.1976 - in Rostock (GDR) and 21-26.06.1976 - in Bordeaux (France). In total, during the service, the Sverdlov passed 206 570 miles in 13 140 running hours.

The construction of these cruisers was also deployed at the Admiralty Shipyard (3 units), Sevmash (2 units) and the Black Sea Shipyard (3 units). By the 1955 year of the planned 25 units, it was possible to build only 14 cruisers of this project, which after the decommissioning of the old battleships became the largest ships in the Navy.

The hasty, not thought-out innovations of N.S. Khrushchev and his close associates affected in the most negative way the fate of these ships. So almost completely finished ships were cut into scrap. In addition to the last two, ship readiness ranged from 68 to 84%, and Kronstadt even went through mooring trials. The cruisers, put into operation, fate has developed in different ways. KR "Ordzhonikidze" 10-14.07.1954. paid a visit to Helsinki (Finland). 18 - The 27.04.1956 was a detachment of Soviet ships (KR “Ordzhonikidze”, EM “Looking” and “Perfect”) under the flag of Rear Admiral V.F. Kotov delivered to Portsmouth (Great Britain) a Soviet government delegation. It is curious that the admiral's salon was taken by N. S. Khrushchev, and N. A. Bulganin - by the commander. 20 April, the Soviet delegation visited a dinner at the Royal Maritime College in Greenwich. During the stay the sailors noticed an underwater saboteur at the side of the cruiser - he appeared for a moment and disappeared again. After some time, the body of a swimmer in a black diving suit emerged at the Ordzhonikidze site. English newspapers claimed that the corpse was without a head, which was never found. The swimmer was the captain of the 3 rank Lionel Crabb. Lieutenant Crabb was still in the 1941 year, joined the group of English combat swimmers based in Gibraltar. English newspapers wrote that he had begun his "studies" during the first visit to the UK of the cruiser Sverdlov. Then everything ended well. Then, British intelligence began to hunt for Ordzhonikidze. In 1955, in the Baltic Sea, a super-submarine belonging to the special services of the United Kingdom disappeared without a trace, trying to penetrate the cruiser's home base. 1 - 8.08.1956

Ordzhonikidze paid a visit to Copenhagen (Denmark); 7 - 11.08.1958 - in Helsinki. Since 14.02.1961 was part of the Black Sea Fleet. 5.04.1962 went from Sevastopol for the transfer of the Indonesian Navy and 5.08.1962 arrived in Surabaya. Subsequently, under the name "Irian" was part of the Indonesian Navy. After the coup, arranged by General Suharto, the cruiser was sent to prison for the Communists. In 1972, Irian is disarmed and sold for scrap.


"Admiral Nakhimov" (scheduled for rearmament on 71 Ave. with the installation of air defense missile systems), was excluded from the fleet in the 60s after participating in testing the first RCC samples.

"Dzerzhinsky" was retooled in accordance with pr. 70E (one tower of the main caliber was removed and in its place the Volkhov-M SAM system with ammunition in 10 anti-aircraft missiles was installed).



The M-2 complex was intended for the air defense of a ship against attacking bomber and missile aircraft. The M-2 anti-aircraft missile B-753 of the Volkhov C-75 complex was used as a fire weapon.


The rocket was a two-stage rocket B-750, modified for use in ship conditions, which was developed for the C-75 air defense missile system and was already tested in the middle of 1955. The range of the first shipboard SAM was to be 29 km, altitude from 3 to 22 km. To arm the ships on the rockets, the suspension units to the guides of the launcher had to be changed, and a number of construction materials were replaced, taking into account their use in marine conditions.

Due to the large dimensions of the missiles (their length was almost 10,8 m, and the span of the stabilizers was 1,8 m), the dimensions of the ship’s reconstructed artillery cellars were insufficient for them, with the result that the Dzerzhinsky had to make a special superstructure (cellar) 3,3 meters high, cut through the lower and upper decks, as well as the deck of the forecastle above it. The roof and walls of the cellar above the lower deck were armored with anti-bullet armor 20 mm thick. Of the ten missiles located in the cellar, eight were stored on two special rotating drums (four missiles each), two missiles were outside the drums and were intended to feed them.

In the cellar was placed equipment supply systems and loading rockets. The engine room of the cellar, located in its lower part, was separated by an "impermeable flooring".

One set of control and guidance systems “Corvette-Sevan”, radar for detecting air targets “Kaktus”, 2 set of identification equipment “Torch-M”, radar “Spill” (was installed later).

In its final form, the Dzerzhinsky KRL under the 70 project was presented for testing at the end of 1958, the mooring lines were carried out in October, the ship’s factory running tests were carried out in October, and the M-2 complex experimental design began in December. According to the program of these tests, the first D-753 missile launches were conducted with the Dzerzhinsky, which showed the performance of the launcher and missile feeders from the cellar, as well as safety for the ship superstructures of the impact of the missile launch accelerator system. Sevan "when shooting at targets towed by airplanes.

During the 1959 of the year, about 20 missile launches were carried out, including at air targets. The first real target for the M-2 was the Il-28 bomber, flying at an altitude of 10 km and which was shot down by the very first missile. However, in the process of creating M-2, it was not possible to implement all the solutions planned by the designers. So, in spite of the attempts made to create an automatic fueling system for the marching stage of rockets with fuel, in the final version it was decided to stop at their manual refueling in the rocket cellar before being sent to the launcher.
Following the results of its work, the State Commission made the following conclusion: “The M-2 anti-aircraft guided missile system, consisting of the Corvette-Sevan system, B-753 anti-aircraft missiles and the launch vehicle with the CM-64 charging and loading device, is effective an air defense weapon and can be recommended for arming naval ships as a military weapon with high accuracy in hitting air targets. "

At the same time, the commission indicated the need for additional work on the ship. In particular, it was necessary to ensure the protection of open battle posts of the cruiser from the gas jet of launching missiles, to develop and install an automatic fire extinguishing system in the ZUR cellar, to create and install on the ship a system for high-speed refueling of missiles with fuel in the process of supplying them from the storage to the PU.

The results obtained during the M-2 tests in 1959-60 were mostly close to the specified requirements. But a number of shortcomings of the new weapons were not ignored, and, first of all, the fact that the M-2 turned out to be too heavy and large in size, even for such a ship as the Dzerzhinsky. Another factor limiting the capabilities of the complex was the low rate of fire due to the considerable time required for reloading launchers, as well as a small amount of missile ammunition. In addition, the two-component, highly toxic fuel used at the missile defense system created an increased fire and explosion hazard.

However, given the experimental nature of the creation of the first ship-borne air defense missile system, these shortcomings did not belong to the critical category, and the ship equipped with this complex could easily be used as a floating "party", where it acquired its first experience with the calculations of future ship-borne air defense missile systems.

August 3 1961, after the completion of the test program M-2, "Dzerzhinsky" was transferred to the category of training ships. In this role, he performed several dozen long-distance hikes to Constanza (Romania), Varna (Bulgaria), Istanbul (Turkey), Lattakia (Syria), Port Said (Egypt), Piraeus (Greece), Le Havre (France) and Tunisia .

In the summer of 1967 and in the fall of 1973 of the year, while in the Mediterranean in the zone of military operations, Dzerzhinsky performed the task of assisting the armed forces of Egypt. The last test of the missile defense system on the ship was carried out in 1982 .. all missiles flowed and were not capable.
The explosion of the tower on the cruiser "Admiral Senyavin".

13 June 1978 of the year Admiral Senyavin KRU conducted training shooting. The fire led only one tower (No. I), the second was conserved and did not have personnel. Practical projectiles (that is, without explosives) and low-combat charges were used. After eight successful salvoes, on the ninth, the right gun did not fire.

Such a case was provided for, and two locks automatically turned on, preventing the shutter from opening. However, the calculation turned off the lock, opened the shutter, and the tray with the next charge was set to the loading position. As a result of the automatic activation of the drive, the sucker poured a new projectile into the weapon's chambers, crushing the charge in it, and it ignited. A jet of hot gases through the gap between the dispatched projectile and the tool chamber broke through into the fighting compartment. The old projectile flew out of the barrel and fell into the water in 50 m from the ship, and the new projectile flew back into the fighting compartment. A fire broke out in the tower. By order of the captain of the ship 2 rank V. Plakhov, the cellars of the I and II towers were flooded. The fire was extinguished by regular fire extinguishing equipment, but everyone who was in the first tower, including the correspondent of the “Krasnaya Zvezda” newspaper, captain of 2 rank L. Klimchenko, died. Of the 37 dead, 31 people were poisoned by carbon monoxide, three were drowned when the cellars were flooded, and three were fatal injuries.

The appearance of control ships in the USA and the unresolved nature of this problem in our fleet at the end of the 60s led to the conversion of two cruisers "Zhdanov" and "Admiral Senyavin" into control ships on 68У-1, 68У-2 avenue. Moreover, they were originally supposed to re-equip them at pr. 68U, but at the Vladivostok Dalzavod, not one tower of the main caliber was removed by mistake, but two. To hide this fact, two variants of the 68Y-1 and 68Y-2 projects were developed retroactively. Moreover, to use additional free weights and spaces on the 68-2, it was decided to place a helipad and a hangar for storing the Ka-25 helicopter.


In the 70-x on the 4-x ships additionally installed new 30-mm assault rifles AK-630 and ADMS Osa-M. Re-equipment and equipment of the ships and more modern radio engineering means were made.


On this ship, the development of a class of artillery cruisers in the Soviet Navy stopped, although the development of missile-artillery cruisers (variants with guns from 152-mm to 305-mm caliber, full armor and various missiles were considered) went up to 1991.

Cruisers pr. 68-bis
1. Cr. Sverdlov entered service on 1952, decommissioned on 1989 (37 years)
2. Cr. “Zhdanov” set foot on 1952, decommissioned on 1990 (38 years)
Converted to KU.
3. Kr. "Ordzhonikidze" was put into operation 1952 g., Decommissioned 1963 g. (11 years) Transferred to Indonesia.
4. Cr. "Dzerzhinsky" entered into service 1952, decommissioned 1988 (36 years) Converted to pr. 70-E.
5. Cr. "Alexander Nevsky" was put into operation on 1952, written off by 1989 (37let).
6. Cr. "Alexander Suvorov" "entered into service 1953, written off 1989, (36 years) Transferred from BF to Pacific Fleet.
7. Cr. "Admiral Lazarev" entered into operation 1953g., Decommissioned 1986 (33). Transferred from BF to Pacific Fleet.
8. Cr. "Admiral Ushakov" "entered into service 1953 g., Decommissioned 1987 g. (34 of the year). Transferred from BF to SF.
9. Cr. "Admiral Nakhimov" entered into operation 1953g., Decommissioned 1961 g. (11 years)
Dismantled after conversion.
10. Cr. "Molotovsk" entered into operation 1954., Decommissioned 1989 (35 years)
Renamed to "October Revolution"
11. Cr. "Admiral Senyavin" entered into operation 1954g., Decommissioned 1989 g. (35 years) Converted to KU.
12. Cr. "Dmitry Pozharsky" entered into service 1954, decommissioned 1987 (33). Transferred from BF to Pacific Fleet.
13. Cr. "Mikhail Kutuzov" entered into operation 1954g., Decommissioned 2002 g. (48 years). Turned into a museum of the Navy. Currently Kr. "Mikhail Kutuzov" is "on the eternal parking" as a ship-museum in Novorossiysk
14. Cr. "Murmansk" entered into service 1955, decommissioned 1992 (37 years)

The cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzov" in Novorossiysk


The fate of the Kyrgyz Republic "Murmansk" was more tragic.

On his last cruise, the cruiser sailed under tugs, at the end of the 1994 of the year. It had to be cut up for scrap in India, where it was sold.
However, during a storm, after a break of towing cables, it was thrown into a shallow, off the coast of Norway, on a shallow, not far from the entrance to one of the fjords.


For a long time this giant, this pride of the Soviet Navy, rested at the Norwegian coast, at Cape North Cape, as if inquiring with its appearance: “Why did you do this to me?”.


In 2009, the Norwegian government decided to remove the wreck. The work turned out to be quite difficult and was repeatedly delayed.

Today, the operation is close to the final. In April, the contractor AF Decom completed the construction of a dam around the cruiser. By the middle of May, 2012, from the dock, judging by the photos of the Norwegian coastal administration, pumped almost all the water. To begin cutting it remains to inspect the hull and make some preparations.

“We, in the end, managed to ensure the watertightness of the dock,“ Murmansk ”is now almost completely visible. We did not completely dry the dock so as not to subject the structure to undesirable loads. We can easily divide most of the ship's hull in its current position, ”the website of the coastal administration quotes the project manager Knut Arnhus.


The stranded ship is not in the best condition - the waves and bad weather tormented him for almost twenty years. The specialists of AF Decom completed their work by dividing 14000 tons of metal. Instead of the planned 40 million euros, it cost them 44 million.

Sources:
http://www.russian-ships.info/boevye/68bis.htm
http://korabley.net/news/krejser_mikhail_kutuzov_proekta_68bis/2011-06-11-852
http://navycollection.narod.ru/ships/Russia/Cruisers/KR_PR68_bis_Sverdlov/history1.html
http://barentsobserver.com/ru/priroda/razdelka-murmanska-vstupila-v-zavershayushchuyu-fazu
AB Shirokorad "FLEET, WHICH DESTROYS KHRUSHCHYOV"
Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. smart ass
    smart ass 6 May 2013 08: 10 New
    +2
    You can of course blame me, but I think that the ship was extremely unsuccessful and outdated)) personally walked on it in Novorossiysk.

    Particularly surprised by the sparks at 11

    The swinging part of the installation was two automatic machines with ballistic guns 70-K, mounted in one cradle. Monoblock barrel had forced water cooling, vertical wedge shutter. Vertical and horizontal aiming mechanisms are only manual, with two speeds. The manual stabilization mechanism is designed to stabilize the axis of the trunnions of the swinging part during pitching. There was little use from the manual stabilization system, as a result, the calculation was reduced by one person, and the stabilization system was eliminated. The power of the machine guns was braced (there were 5 rounds in the clip); manual feed

    Which jet aircraft in the 50th year can be brought down by this miracle of technology corresponding to the performance characteristics of the time of World War I ???????? CHARGING! 5 CARTRIDGES each!

    It was a crime to build such ships and send them to serve in the Black Sea Fleet in the days of RCC and jet aviation. (I'm talking about KUTUZOV)
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 6 May 2013 08: 31 New
      17
      Quote: Clever man
      You can of course blame me, but I think that the ship was extremely unsuccessful and outdated))

      It was not "extremely unfortunate", you correctly noted, it was simply outdated by the time it went into production. At that time, the rapid development of both jet aviation and missile systems took place, and this ship was no longer in time. By himself, of course, a handsome man, the spirit of romance blows from him.
      1. avt
        avt 6 May 2013 09: 39 New
        +5
        Quote: Vladimirets
        It was not "extremely unfortunate", you correctly noted, it was simply outdated by the time it went into production.
        To some extent, yes, the admirals received ships that they really lacked during the war. Even the project number was saved, letters were added, first they completed building K, and then they put the encore. But the ships turned out to be good. good It is a pity that the article does not tell about Nakhimov, it was first used as an experimental ship for missile weapons.
        1. altman
          altman 6 May 2013 09: 44 New
          +2
          They say that it was used as an experimental one to study the effect of an atomic underwater explosion on a ship with a large displacement, although .. it may just be a duck
      2. altman
        altman 6 May 2013 09: 42 New
        +5
        I completely agree with you .. the development of technology has led to the fact that it was outdated already at the time of bookmarking ... but what a beautiful one !! I consider one of the most beautiful ships of the Soviet Union in architecture
      3. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 6 May 2013 16: 09 New
        +6
        Quote: Vladimirets
        You correctly noticed, it was just outdated by then

        Out of date - not out of date
        The only suitable tool for fire support of amphibious assault forces.

        And letting out the cruiser alone against the aircraft carrier Nimitz ... if, at the time of receipt of the order, the cruiser watches the aircraft carrier at a distance of direct visibility, the aircraft carrier is a loyal corpse. (remember what the little Zuni rocket did? and here - fifty 152 mm hits per minute)
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. old man54
          old man54 6 May 2013 21: 42 New
          -3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          And letting out the cruiser alone against the aircraft carrier Nimitz ... if, at the time of receipt of the order, the cruiser watches the aircraft carrier at a distance of direct visibility, the aircraft carrier is a loyal corpse. (remember what the little Zuni rocket did? and here - fifty 152 mm hits per minute)


          But who will let him then to the "Nimitz" or some other aircraft carrier? Are they, "Nimitz", hanging out in the seas by themselves, without an escort order or what? :) They were so guarded and guarded that no one would have been allowed at the distance of the ship's main battery shot!
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 May 2013 22: 04 New
            +8
            Why? In neutral waters before the outbreak of war. Somewhere I read that these cruisers just cruised next to the aircraft carriers and were ready to open fire for paralysis. Naturally, the survival factor was in tenth place in the list of tasks.
            1. Bongo
              7 May 2013 05: 28 New
              +6
              In any case, the time needed to load a gun and shoot out of it is several times less than that required to launch an anti-ship missile or carrier-based aircraft. So, such tactics are justified.
              1. old man54
                old man54 8 May 2013 19: 07 New
                -4
                your tactics may be quite justified, if the amerovsky naval commander who sits on the "Nimitz" is a muddlehead or down! :) They are not stupid either and understand that if you allow the cruiser to loom in front of you at least at the maximum distance of the main battery, then it is and it will be, as you imagine. :)) That is why the ships of "sworn friends" were always chasing and maneuvering one after another and relative to each other. AUG needed a distance of 250/500 km to strike if something happened, and we needed 150 km for the P-35, but in our case, 20/25 km in general. And on such a small distance to the aircraft carrier, the Yankee guard would never let the cruiser go. Well, and most importantly - wars almost never begin just like that, from a bunch of flounders! They are always preceded in one way or another by tension in relations, readiness for the fleet "number of times", etc. So it would not come as a surprise to anyone that the "Russian" is huddled closer.
                1. Bongo
                  9 May 2013 12: 00 New
                  +5
                  And how, being in neutral waters, in peacetime, you can prevent you from going a parallel course in peacetime, except to open fire to kill? Although there were cases of collisions between our and American ships "during dangerous maneuvering" when they tried to "squeeze out" ours. On the cruisers of Project 58. while escorting the AUG in the Mediterranean Sea, our sailors relied more on the M-2 air defense missiles than on the long-range P-35. At the standard tracking distance of the American order, they were preferable, also due to the shorter reaction time.
                  1. old man54
                    old man54 9 May 2013 20: 30 New
                    -1
                    "M-2" is the Volna air defense system or what? So there is a maximum distance of 18 km, and then depending on the modification, if my memory serves me !? Yes, and shooting these missiles at an aircraft carrier is the same as throwing a fork at a rhinoceros. :)) And in general, even the potential opportunity to shoot these missiles at the NK appeared after the 70th year, after certain technical improvements. And after the 70s, it was no longer relevant to threaten amers with Project 68-bis cruisers. other more suitable ships appeared. Basically, they were kept at the side all this time for "work on the shore". they are very good in this capacity.
                    In general, your tactics have the right to life, but it’s very unrealistic, sorry. :)
                    1. Bongo
                      10 May 2013 04: 09 New
                      +6
                      She is the one with the S-125 missile. This tactic is not mine, but of our admirals, the times of the USSR. If the "fork" has a speed of more than 2m. and warheads weighing more than 60 kg., then it is quite possible to fill up any "rhino". Moreover, with several "forks" :)
                      1. old man54
                        old man54 11 May 2013 12: 59 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Bongo
                        This tactic is not mine, but of our admirals, from the time of the USSR.

                        Yes, you didn’t understand me, I don’t deceive that such a tactic took place, but this is all from despair and from the fact that we did not have our own aircraft carriers, and it was necessary to fight them and suppress their aircraft carriers in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, so our naval commanders tried to fight closer to them, tk. otherwise there was no chance at all, and they dodged and maneuvered, left and hid. I tell you about real life, and you tell me about the theory of admirals. Of course, if, at the time of receiving the order to open fire on the amerovskoy grouping (war!), Our cruiser would still be at the distance of the main battery, which is not very realistic, then most likely he would have had time to at least remove him from the side with his art fire, which is no longer bad. BUT ... it is very difficult to sink such a colossus, even smaller analogs during the 2nd MV did not want to sink from the art fire! Yes, and the protection of the AG in our cruiser would start to smack with the same rate of fire (20/25 rds / min) but a large number of 127-mm guns. our Navy, in vain you, but this tactic is very "flimsy, akin to that like climbing a tank with a bottle of combustible mixture! Yes, it worked more than once during the Second World War, but is it effective, with a bottle on a tank? I think not at all , again out of despair, therefore, it turned out to be from this type of tactics after the anti-tank grenades appeared in the required number and anti-tank guns began to be enough.
                      2. Bongo
                        11 May 2013 13: 48 New
                        +5
                        The tactic is certainly suicidal, but not without a chance of success. It is worth remembering the "big fire" on "Enterize", because of the only exploded NAR "Zuni", the huge ship was put on the brink of destruction.
                        And then they also thought whether it should be restored after a fire, or is it easier to build a new one ...
                    2. old man54
                      old man54 11 May 2013 14: 03 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Bongo
                      If the "fork" has a speed of more than 2m. and warheads weighing more than 60 kg., then it is quite possible to fill up any "rhino". Moreover, with several "forks" :)


                      Okay, let's figure it out in detail !! In fact, our sailors intended to use the Volna in case of sharp, unforeseen situations, such as small, unexpected skirmishes with individual ships of a “potential enemy” in the oceans, when they became insolent and also began to threaten them with weapons. And they did it, ours, out of despair, tk. on ships after the 60th year of construction, naval artillery was extremely poorly represented, and the amers had semi-automatic, and later automatic 127mm-guns. And here I agree with you, in such situations, of course, the reaction speed of the M-1 (!!) of 20/25 seconds and the opportunity that appeared after the 70th year to shoot at NK made them indispensable in such a critical situation. But here you are directly hinting that they were going to let Yankee aircraft carriers sink to the bottom with them, which ... looks very fantastic. :))) The frigate and the destroyer with 1/2 volleys can definitely be disabled, if not sunk, even , but an ocean-going aircraft carrier barge? :))) Well, let's say that our ship was at the beginning of the conflict next to the AUG at a distance of using the Volna air defense missile system (up to 15 km) on their ocean-going barge with aircraft. Let him be the first to open fire with a volley of 4 missiles! The flight time of missiles for the maximum range is about 4 minutes, but while these missiles are flying, others will not be released, because the complex was single-channel !! Seeing all this action, the AUG warrant opens fire to kill it, even if from the main artillery barrels of the destroyers (speed 20/25 RPM; 24/28 km max. Range)! How long would our ship hold out in such a situation, well, for example, project 58, or "BOD", project 1134/61? I believe that he would not have had time to make more than 2 volleys from this air defense system, tk. the ships were not armored at all, fragile! But if you are very lucky, 3 volleys are possible, i.e. 12 missiles M-1.
                      Now amerovsky aircraft carrier ... The deck of aircraft carriers of the 60s / 70s is extremely durable, not armor, but somewhere close! It is designed not only for the regular "fall" on it of aircraft weighing from 15 to 30 tons, but also for cases with an aircraft, such as the crash of an aircraft on an aircraft carrier (flight deck) with all the consequences, but at the same time so that this does not lead to the withdrawal of the aircraft carrier out of order (deformation of the PP).
                    3. old man54
                      old man54 11 May 2013 14: 40 New
                      0
                      Now the air defense missile system is firing at the NK. It is carried out by the "slide" method, i.e. parabolic or max. hyperbole range (our case). Those. it is unlikely to get into the board, most likely in the PP. The starting weight of the M-1 rocket is 693 kg, after firing the powder starting booster "-" the full fuel consumption and we get (very "by eye") 300/350 kg of weight at the time of the meeting with the target. A warhead weighing 60 kg ... but this is not a high-explosive warhead, but a specially-fragmentation warhead, designed to destroy an aircraft, and not to destroy an NK !!! It is not a penetrating type, and the explosion occurs immediately upon contact with the target. Yes, and 60kg warhead is the level of a standard 100kg free-fall bomb, which is not considered a mortal threat for the fleet. A striking example of this is the recent war between Russia and Georgia in 2008. MRK "Mirage" fired 2 shots from the "Osa-M" air defense missile system at the approaching Georgian boats (the speed is approximately the same; the mass of the SAM is 128 kg; the warhead is 15 kgVV). By officer. according to the boat, presumably pr. 206MR (displacement of 250 tons) was taken out of service, lost speed, but stayed afloat !!!! And after the 50s of construction, aircraft carriers have a displacement of 70 to 100 THOUSAND TONS! And with their PP strength, I am not very sure that the M-1 Volna air defense missile system will be able to penetrate it and at least start a fire in the hangar of an aircraft carrier. But the PP and the "island" can definitely be disabled.
                      As a summary, based on the foregoing, even the 12 M-1 (M-2) anti-aircraft missiles that hit the Amer aircraft carrier barge will not sink it (aircraft carrier), which is unambiguous, and most likely will not even cause him serious, critical harm, which will not allow further use after repair! Will incapacitate him? YES, get it out! For a long time? Depending on the circumstances, where exactly will get and how will the crew fight for survivability. There is an example from the history of the operation of the Yankee aircraft carriers: “a major fire at the Enterprise in 1969 due to a spontaneous explosion of the 127-mmm suspension rocket at the Phantom and, as a result, the detonation of 9 pcs. 300-400 kg of bombs on the suspension of other nearby aircraft. 28 people died; 15 aircraft destroyed forever; 32 LA is severely damaged. However, despite the heavy damage, the aircraft carrier in several hours provided takeoff and landing of the aircraft. ”
                      So to “shoot” these barges of air defense systems is an extremely thankless task, in vain you are counting on it! In this case, I would have counted more on RCC, in those years on P-35, for example, with its penetrating ability and warheads with 800 / 1000 kg of explosives. Even taking into account the time of its preparation for the start, it’s still a specific weapon, and not a “fly swatter” M-1 (2)! According to modern estimates of naval aviation experts, even the X-22 missiles need at least 8-10 to “come” to it, and you are the Volna air defense missile system to sink the US
                  2. old man54
                    old man54 11 May 2013 14: 07 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Bongo
                    If the "fork" has a speed of more than 2m. and warheads weighing more than 60 kg., then it is quite possible to fill up any "rhino". Moreover, with several "forks" :)

                    Okay, let's figure it out in detail !! In fact, our sailors intended to use the Volna in case of sharp, unforeseen situations, such as small, unexpected skirmishes with individual ships of a “potential enemy” in the oceans, when they became insolent and also began to threaten them with weapons. And they did it, ours, out of despair, tk. on ships after the 60th year of construction, naval artillery was extremely poorly represented, and the amers had semi-automatic, and later automatic 127mm-guns. And here I agree with you, in such situations, of course, the reaction speed of the M-1 (!!) of 20/25 seconds and the opportunity that appeared after the 70th year to shoot at NK made them indispensable in such a critical situation. But here you are directly hinting that they were going to let Yankee aircraft carriers sink to the bottom with them, which ... looks very fantastic. :))) The frigate and the destroyer with 1/2 volleys can definitely be disabled, if not sunk, even , but an ocean-going aircraft carrier barge? :))) Well, let's say that our ship was at the beginning of the conflict next to the AUG at a distance of using the Volna air defense missile system (up to 15 km) on their ocean-going barge with aircraft. Let him be the first to open fire with a volley of 4 missiles! The flight time of missiles for the maximum range is about 4 minutes, but while these missiles are flying, others will not be released, because the complex was single-channel !! Seeing all this action, the AUG warrant opens fire to kill it, even if from the main artillery barrels of the destroyers (speed 20/25 RPM; 24/28 km max. Range)! How long would our ship hold out in such a situation, well, for example, project 58, or "BOD", project 1134/61? I believe that he would not have had time to make more than 2 volleys from this air defense system, tk. the ships were not armored at all, fragile! But if you are very lucky, 3 volleys are possible, i.e. 12 missiles M-1.
                    Now amerovsky aircraft carrier ... The deck of aircraft carriers of the 60s / 70s is extremely durable, not armor, but somewhere close! It is designed not only for the regular "fall" on it of aircraft weighing from 15 to 30 tons, but also for cases with an aircraft, such as the crash of an aircraft on an aircraft carrier (flight deck) with all the consequences, but at the same time so that this does not lead to the withdrawal of the aircraft carrier out of order (deformation of the PP).
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. old man54
                    old man54 11 May 2013 14: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: Bongo
                    If the "fork" has a speed of more than 2m. and warheads weighing more than 60 kg., then it is quite possible to fill up any "rhino". Moreover, with several "forks" :)


                    Okay, let's figure it out in detail !! In fact, our sailors intended to use the Volna in case of sharp, unforeseen situations, such as small, unexpected skirmishes with individual ships of a “potential enemy” in the oceans, when they became insolent and also began to threaten them with weapons. And they did it, ours, out of despair, tk. on ships after the 60th year of construction, naval artillery was extremely poorly represented, and the amers had semi-automatic, and later automatic 127mm-guns. And here I agree with you, in such situations, of course, the reaction speed of the M-1 (!!) of 20/25 seconds and the opportunity that appeared after the 70th year to shoot at NK made them indispensable in such a critical situation. But here you are directly hinting that they were going to let Yankee aircraft carriers sink to the bottom with them, which ... looks very fantastic. :))) The frigate and the destroyer with 1/2 volleys can definitely be disabled, if not sunk, even , but an ocean-going aircraft carrier barge? :))) Well, let's say that our ship was at the beginning of the conflict next to the AUG at a distance of using the Volna air defense missile system (up to 15 km) on their ocean-going barge with aircraft. Let him be the first to open fire with a volley of 4 missiles! The flight time of missiles for the maximum range is about 4 minutes, but while these missiles are flying, others will not be released, because the complex was single-channel !! Seeing all this action, the AUG warrant opens fire to kill it, even if from the main artillery barrels of the destroyers (speed 20/25 RPM; 24/28 km max. Range)! How long would our ship hold out in such a situation, well, for example, project 58, or "BOD", project 1134/61? I believe that he would not have had time to make more than 2 volleys from this air defense system, tk. the ships were not armored at all, fragile! But if you are very lucky, 3 volleys are possible, i.e. 12 missiles M-1.
                    Now amerovsky aircraft carrier ... The deck of aircraft carriers of the 60s / 70s is extremely durable, not armor, but somewhere close! It is designed not only for the regular "fall" on it of aircraft weighing from 15 to 30 tons, but also for cases with an aircraft, such as the crash of an aircraft on an aircraft carrier (flight deck) with all the consequences, but at the same time so that this does not lead to the withdrawal of the aircraft carrier out of order (deformation of the PP).
                  5. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 8 January 2015 16: 29 New
                    0
                    flight operations on an aircraft carrier due to a big fire cease for a long time and then this is no longer the AUG ...
  • Drednout
    Drednout 6 May 2013 18: 52 New
    +4
    Quote: Vladimirets
    By himself, of course, handsome, he blows from him with the spirit of romance.

    No wonder he is on the sign "For a long trip".
    And for the "demonstration of the flag" it was perfect.
    Regarding military usefulness, thank God did not have to test, but many new technologies of that time were tested on it and modernization was ongoing.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 6 May 2013 16: 04 New
    12
    Quote: Clever man
    Particularly surprised by the sparks at 11

    You are a wise guy! And make a conclusion worthy of a high school student

    37 mm twin-B-11 - These are museum exhibits.
    But if you raised your head, you would have seen the real cruiser air defense - 8 paired AK-230 automatic systems (2000 rds / min) with radar guidance
    Moreover, two cruisers of this type (Zhdanov and Senyavin) were deployed by the Osa-M air defense system, and on the Dzerzhinsky - an experimental M-2 long-range air defense system
    Quote: Clever man
    In the days of RCC

    In the days of RCC?
    Battle-ready samples of Western anti-ship missiles "Exoset", "Harpoon" - appeared in the late 70s, 25 years later than the cruisers 68 bis

    But the funniest thing is that the 68-bis project cruiser was invulnerable to light RCC (Exoset armor penetration within 40 mm, cruiser armor-belt - 100 mm)
    1. Drednout
      Drednout 6 May 2013 18: 53 New
      +2
      SWEET_SIXTEEN
      good +
    2. Drednout
      Drednout 6 May 2013 19: 03 New
      0
      I apologize for the quality - a scan from a book.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 6 May 2013 19: 17 New
        +1
        Alas, the picture is unclickable
  • Santa bear
    Santa bear 6 May 2013 08: 47 New
    +5
    o..thank you, very informative article. My father served on the cruiser "Sverdlov" as a ship's doctor, crossed the equator .. when he showed me photographs from that campaign, he glowed with good memories. and the photograph of "Sverdlov" is still in a place of honor in the family photo archive.
    1. 4fedor1
      4fedor1 10 May 2013 19: 22 New
      +1
      and my dad served on the Admiral Sinyavin as a sergeant major of Bch-5.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 6 May 2013 09: 45 New
    +3
    Beautiful ship! It is unfortunate that the era of artillery ships has sunk into oblivion. There was no less romance than in the era of the sailing fleet. Thank you for the article.
    PS After the explosion of the battleship Novorossiysk, my grandfather served on such a cruiser for a while. It was not yet possible to find out which one. recourse
  • Marks
    Marks 6 May 2013 09: 47 New
    0
    Last summer, they were not allowed to board Kutuzov in Novorossiysk, they said that they had become completely rusty. It's a pity!
    1. Drednout
      Drednout 6 May 2013 19: 04 New
      0
      Breshut. Not older than the Aurora.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 6 May 2013 10: 07 New
    0
    Interestingly, what is the maximum elevation angle for shooting at six-inch air targets?
    According to the experience of using GC guns against air targets, the idea is not the best. Even the monstrous shrapnel Yamato 460-mm shells practically did no harm to the American dive-bombers and torpedo bombers in the Ten-Go operation. request
  • Professor
    Professor 6 May 2013 14: 08 New
    +6
    A couple of photos after.







    1. Bongo
      7 May 2013 05: 31 New
      +5
      Great snm, professor! Thank!
  • ABV
    ABV 6 May 2013 14: 19 New
    +5
    And yet, no matter what ..... these cruisers --- What handsome !!!
  • albert
    albert 6 May 2013 20: 54 New
    +1
    Here are some nice pictures.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 6 May 2013 22: 42 New
      +2
      Was on it for ship practice in the summer of 1979. A very nice and pleasant ship, albeit aged (even at that time). We "ran" from Sevastopol to Cape Chauda beyond Feodosia (artillery range) and tested practical shooting with all types of weapons. The main caliber is SOMETHING. He easily threw a 50 kg "suitcase" at 28 km (by the way, with decent accuracy), and the special ammunition weighed 40 kg on it. So a single barrel shot would be enough for an aircraft carrier. lol It is indispensable with the fire support of the landing, it’s very expensive to hit rockets on coastal targets ...
  • albert
    albert 6 May 2013 20: 56 New
    +1
    And one more
  • albert
    albert 6 May 2013 21: 01 New
    +2
    Strange as it is, they give me my best. Here is the last one.
    1. studentmati
      studentmati 6 May 2013 21: 08 New
      0
      I think it’s more correct to say the last, and not the last. And the pictures are beautiful. good
  • old man54
    old man54 6 May 2013 21: 25 New
    +6
    The article is good, solid, thanks to the author!
    yes, it was really a good cruiser, the last of "our Mohicans" was purely artillery. It would be okay to update the air defense system in the 60s. I read that the amers seem to have bought one such from the Turks, who, in turn, were sold by our liberals for scrap metal. They used it as a target for testing torpedo weapons. So for a long time he did not want to drown with them, tk. competently armored and calculated was. The Americans were very surprised that even modern torpedoes did not sink it.
    Most likely the destroyers of the 956 project partially had to replace these very cruisers in our fleet according to the profile of work along the coast with the support of the airborne assault.
  • Sheva777
    Sheva777 7 May 2013 00: 37 New
    0
    But in vain, it seems to me, giving up on large-caliber artillery on modern ships a couple of 300 mm would not hurt.
  • Bongo
    7 May 2013 05: 37 New
    +5
    Many of these almost finished ships, during the time of Khrushchev, were dismantled for scrap directly on the slipways. Although they could be converted without problems into air defense ships and anti-ship missiles.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 7 May 2013 14: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      Many of these almost finished ships, during the time of Khrushchev, were dismantled for scrap directly on the slipways. Although they could be converted without problems into air defense ships and anti-ship missiles.

      easier to build a dozen new nuclear submarines
  • Crang
    Crang 7 May 2013 13: 57 New
    +3
    Good article. True, the author confused a bit. On Project 68 and Project 68-bis, the ZAK AK-630 was never installed. They installed only AK-230. For me personally, the previous cruisers pr.26 and pr.26-bis with 180mm guns were better. And these ... Giant ships in size with a battleship and with the number of 152mm guns of the main battery less than the "Aurora" ... Some kind of nonsense.
    1. Bongo
      7 May 2013 14: 33 New
      +4
      Regarding the AK-630, you are absolutely right, I printed the wrong one. But with the 180-mm guns it is not so simple, they were not too successful, they did not have a high survivability of the barrel. In addition to the cruisers pr.26 and 26 bis, they were no longer used in the fleet.
      The "Aurora" was just 6 inches, that is, 152 mm.
      1. Crang
        Crang 7 May 2013 17: 23 New
        -1
        "Aurora" is half the size. The 180mm guns were great. This is a myth about their failure. The cruisers pr.68 are essentially heavy cruisers. And they had to put 180mm, or better 203mm. It would be a normal heavy cruiser. And this ... Crassy substitution of classes. Let them be light cruisers, but the most powerful in the world.
        1. Bongo
          8 May 2013 13: 08 New
          +5
          If they are so "great", why didn't other ships place them? A.B.Shirokorad has a very detailed description of these guns and their reasoned assessment.
          1. Crang
            Crang 12 May 2013 13: 08 New
            -1
            Well, they were also put on the Krasny Kavkaz cruiser. And more ... And we didn't have any more ships. Why didn't they migrate to Ave 68? Because the 180mm guns were located in a single cradle with a common BO in the turret, which made them not too tenacious. Therefore, we decided to switch to a smaller 152mm caliber. This is a clear mistake. On a 214m long monster with a displacement of 15000t (from a first-class battleship of the early 180th century), there would obviously be room for 12mm guns when placed in more advanced turret mounts. Let not 8, but even 180. It's still better. The 26mm shells of the cruisers of Project 26 and Project 97,5-bis weighed 203 kg (at the level of some 6mm shells) and were twice as heavy as 68-inch shells of the cruisers of Project 26 and its modifications. In general, in terms of firepower and striking effect, the artillery of the pr.26 and pr.68-bis is much more effective than that of the pr.68. The XNUMXs are taken only at the expense of a more modern MSA with a developed radar component.
  • Bongo
    7 May 2013 14: 20 New
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    easier to build a dozen new nuclear submarines

    What is easier? Moreover, nuclear submarines in our country have always had big problems with the repair and training of crews. They have done too much in my opinion. And in the sea they went at times less than the western ones.
    And then ships were often cut with 100% readiness.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 7 May 2013 18: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      there have always been big problems with the repair and training of crews. They have done too much in my opinion. And in the sea they went at times less than the western ones.

      With the training of the crews, everything was just fine. But with the IGO and the Ministry of Natural Resources, alas, NOT AT ALL. Repaired themselves, standing against the wall. Buy the coolest car in the coolest cabin. And "score" on routine maintenance, interrupting on your own in the garage. How long will it last?
      1. Bongo
        8 May 2013 13: 10 New
        +5
        One way or another, but there was no second shift crew on our boats, and before going to sea we had to recruit people from other ships to complete the set.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 7 May 2013 14: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    On pr.68 and pr.68 bis ZAK AK-630 never put. They put only AK-230.
    In Sevastopol there were "Dzerzhinsky", "Ushakov", "Zhdanov". I don’t remember which one was on, but I saw 230 and 260 for sure. The configuration of their air defense systems was very different.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 7 May 2013 14: 42 New
    +3
    Damn, I made a mistake in numbers, instead of 630 I wrote 260. But it's too late to correct, I just noticed. Although I won’t say for sure right now, I remembered the fact that one had a double-barreled turret, and the other had a 6-barrel drum in the squeezed turrets
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 7 May 2013 17: 29 New
    +4
    Milestone was however a project. And the service life of the sides (more than 35 years) is correct, otherwise in the 90s they broke firewood and sent ships with a 10-year service life to the scrap
  • VVooVVaa
    VVooVVaa 15 May 2013 07: 05 New
    +1
    And my dad on Alexander Nevsky served as a rangefinder post.
  • stjrm
    stjrm 26 May 2013 11: 47 New
    +1
    In 1977 he passed ship practice (the very first) at "Murmansk" .....
    I look at the pictures where we are on the deck of this ship .... For a whole month, we went out to sea, shot the DUK (universal hull division, 100mm) ..... impressively ....
    And then the ship is no more .... Yes, and "died" like a rootless dog ... It's sad from all this.
    1. Orchestrarant
      Orchestrarant 26 May 2013 11: 52 New
      0
      AK - 130 heard? In impressive! laughing
  • s_eight
    s_eight 27 May 2013 13: 46 New
    +1
    Hello. I have such a situation - in 1972-1974 my father served at the Sverdlov BC. As far as I remember from old stories, he was an artilleryman in a bow mount. So, the question is this - he said that during the service there was an incident with an attack. At "Sverdlov" someone (as he said - Americans) fired a couple of shots. As a result of the explosions, he was seriously wounded in the leg, as well as several people were injured, someone died. Then they were sent on a ship for treatment to a hospital in Algeria. I saw the scar from the wound, there are photos of all his trips too. But there is no information on the incident. Can someone tell you something about this case.

    P.S. I can’t ask my father, because it’s not known where he is and whether he is alive. The story was heard more than 13 years ago, I don’t remember all the details ..
  • Jarilo
    Jarilo 12 September 2013 12: 44 New
    0
    According to the totality of combat characteristics, the project 68 bis cruisers were quite modern warships, not inferior or superior to analogues of foreign fleets. Being displacement and armor heavy cruisers, similar to the heavy cruisers of the latest generations, they carried lighter artillery with a caliber of 152 mm, and not 203 mm as on an "ordinary" heavy cruiser. In general, this was the right step, since the high efficiency of the project 68 bis artillery mounts practically compensated for the projectile lag in weight, and the tons of weight won by reducing the caliber made it possible to more efficiently increase the reservation and survivability of the ships. Anti-aircraft weapons of the ships were also quite powerful and thoughtful.

    In general, the project 68 bis cruisers were more or less superior to almost all western light cruisers (which is generally not surprising, since with rare exceptions, all western light cruisers were military-built) and were quite comparable to heavy ones. The only ships of similar displacement, a priori surpassing the project 68 bis, were 3 American Des Moines heavy cruisers, with highly automated 203-mm gun mounts.

    A number of historians express doubts about the advisability of building a significant series of artillery cruisers after the Second World War (in fact, the 68 bis project was the largest series of post-war artillery ships), but the urgent need to strengthen the USSR fleet after the war should be taken into account. The Soviet Navy that existed in 1945 could not even ensure supremacy in the Baltic and Black Seas, thereby opening important Soviet flanks to sea strikes in the event of a conflict. Project 68 bis cruisers, and project 30-K destroyers, although they were, in a sense, obsolete projects, nevertheless formed the basis of powerful naval groups capable of waging a struggle for supremacy in the Baltic and Black Seas (with the support of coastal aviation) and carrying out functions cover in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans.
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%F0%E5%E9%F1%E5%F0%E0_%EF%F0%EE%E5%EA%F2%E0_68-%
    E1% E8% F1