Military Review

American battleships like "Iowa"

84



Many experts call Iowa type battleships the most sophisticated ships that were built in the era of armor and artillery. American designers and engineers managed to achieve a harmonious combination of the main combat characteristics - speed, protection and weapons.

The design of these liners began in the 1938 year. Their main purpose is to accompany high-speed aircraft carrier formations and protect them from the Japanese liners and heavy cruisers. Therefore, the main condition was the 30-node motion. At this time, the restrictions of the London Maritime Conference 1936 of the year ended due to Japan’s refusal to sign the final document. In the process, the standard displacement increased from 35 to 45 thousand tons, and the artillery received caliber 406 mm instead of 356 mm. This made it possible to develop a ship, the protection and armament of which was superior to those existing on already built ships of this type, using the increase in displacement to install more powerful machines. In the new project, almost 70 meters were added to the length of the hull, the width remained unchanged, it was limited by the width of the Panama Canal. The hull was also lightened due to the new location of the power plant, which made it possible to narrow the stern and fore part of the ship. In particular, because of this, the American battleships acquired the characteristic "baton" look.



The increased hull length affected the weight of armor, although, in fact, the thickness of its elements remained the same as on South Dakota-style ships - the main armored belt of 310 mm.

Iowa-class ships received new 406-mm guns, the barrel length of which was the same as on the trunks of 50-caliber. The new guns Mk-7 were superior in power to their predecessors - the 406-mm 45-caliber Mk-6, which equipped the ships of the “South Dakota” type. And compared with the 1918-mm Mk-406 and Mk-2 tools developed in 3-year, the new Mk-7 has significantly reduced weight, and the design has been modernized.

It is worth noting that this artillery system is quite interesting. история. In the 20-s, a large number of 406-mm / 50 guns were produced, which equipped the battlecruisers and battleships, which later became victims of the Washington Conference. The use of these tools in the new project significantly reduced financial costs, and also justified the increase in displacement by installing new, more powerful weapons. But as a result, it turned out that it would be necessary to increase the displacement even by at least 2000 tons. Engineers have found a way out - they have made anew lighter tools, the benefit of the design gap was enough. In Mk-7 type guns, the barrel is sealed with a liner that reached the diameter of 1245 mm in the area of ​​the charging chamber, 597 mm at the barrel. The number of grooves was equal to 96, they reached a depth of 3.8 mm with a cutting slope of one revolution for every 25 gauge. Chrome plating of the bore at a distance of 17.526 meters from the muzzle with a thickness of 0.013 mm was also used. Barrel survivability was about 300 shots. At the same time, the piston valve at the swinging trunk was folded down. Structurally, he had 15 stepped sectors, and the angle of rotation reached 24 degrees. After the shot, the bore was purged with low pressure air.



The weight of the gun reached 108 tons without an installed shutter and 121 tons with it. When firing, a powder charge was used with a weight of almost 300 kilograms, which could have thrown an armor-piercing 1225-kilogram shell on 38 kilometers. In addition, the gun could fire high-explosive shells. As part of the project, the Iowa ammunition was supposed to include the 1016-kilogram Mk-5 armor-piercing shells, but in the middle of 1939, the US Navy received a new MK-8 projectile, which reached 1225 kilograms. This is the heaviest projectile of this caliber, which became the basis of the firepower of all American battleships, starting with the "North Carolina". As a comparison, the 406 mm projectile used on the English battleship Nelson weighed only 929 kg, and the Japanese Nagato 410-mm projectile 1020 kg. Approximately 1.5% of the weight of the Mk-8 projectile was the explosive charge. When hitting armor with a thickness of more than 37 mm, the bottom fuse Mk-21 was cocked, which worked with a deceleration of 0.033 seconds. With a full powder charge, the initial speed in 762 m / s was provided, while decreasing it, this indicator decreased to 701 m / s, which ensured ballistics similar to that of the projectile 45-caliber guns Mk-6.

American battleships like "Iowa"


True, this power had a reverse side - strong barrel wear. Therefore, when the battleships needed to fire on the shore, a lighter projectile was developed. The high-explosive Mk-13, put into service in 1942, weight reached only 862 kilogram. It was equipped with several different fuses: Mk-29 - instant-impact shock, Mk-48 – shock with deceleration in 0.15 seconds, as well as remote tube Mk-62 with time setting to 45 seconds. 8.1% of the weight of the projectile occupied by an explosive. Toward the end of the war, when the main gauge of the battleships were used only for firing on the coast, the Mk-13 projectiles received charges reduced to 147.4, which provided the initial velocity at 580 m / s.

In the postwar years, ammunition of Iowa-type battleships was replenished with several new samples of 406-mm projectiles. In particular, the Mk-13, Mk-143, 144, 145 and 145 were developed on the basis of the Mk-144. They all used electronic remote tube of various types. In addition, the Mk-146 and 400 had 666 and XNUMX gaps, respectively.



At the beginning of the 1950-ies, the Mk-7 guns received a Mk-23 projectile, which was equipped with a W-23 nuclear charge - 1 CT in TNT equivalent. The weight of the projectile was 862 kilogram, length - 1.63 meter, and the appearance is almost completely copied Mk-13. According to official data, the nuclear artillery shells were in service with the Iowa battleships from 1956 to 1961 a year, but in fact they were kept ashore all the time.

And already in the 1980-e years, the Americans tried to develop a high-range sabot projectile for 406-mm guns. Its weight should have been 454 kilograms, and the initial speed - 1098 m / s with a maximum range of 64 kilometers. True, this development has not left the experimental testing stage.

The rate of guns was two shots per minute, while providing independent fire of each gun in the tower. Of contemporaries, only the Japanese superlinker "Yamato" had a heavier weight volley of the main caliber. The total weight of the three-gun turret was approximately 3 thousand tons. Shooting provided the calculation of the 94 man of personnel.

The tower made it possible for 300 degrees to be shifted horizontally and + 45 and -5 degrees vertically. 406-mm shells were stored vertically in a fixed circular store in two tiers, which was located inside the barbet of the tower. Between the rotary structure of the tower installation and the store were two ring platforms that rotate independently of it. They were given shells, which were then moved to the ski lifts, regardless of the angle of horizontal guidance of the tower. In total there were three lifts, the central one was a vertical pipe, and the extreme ones were curved. The work of each provided 75-strong electric motor.



For storage of charges used two-tier cellars in the lower compartments, which are adjacent to the annular structure of the tower. They were served in gazebos of six units using three charging chain lifts, which were driven by an electric motor with a capacity of 100 hp. Like its predecessors, the design of the Iowa towers did not contain an overload compartment, which cut off the charge chain from the cellar. Americans hoped for a complex system of hermetic doors, which should not have let the fire go through the lifts. However, this decision does not seem indisputable - American battleships risked to fly up into the air more likely than most of their contemporaries.

The standard 406-mm turret at number one was 390 shells, the number two turret was 460, and the number 3 turret was 370. When firing, a special analog computing device was used, which took into account the direction of movement of the battleship and its speed, as well as weather conditions and projectile flight time.

Accuracy increased significantly after the introduction of radar, which gave an advantage over Japanese ships without radar installations.

As on the predecessors, ten 127-mm paired universal units were used as heavy anti-aircraft weapons.



The range in height when shooting at planes reached 11 kilometers at the stated rate of fire in 15 shots per minute. The small-caliber artillery consisted of four-barreled 40-mm Bofors automatic rifles, as well as twin and single-barreled 20-mm air-guns. For fire control "boforsov" used the director-column Mk-51. The Oerlikon was initially guided individually, but in the 1945, the Mk-14 sighting columns were introduced, which automatically gave out data for firing.

The displacement of the Iowa class battleships was 57450-57600 tons, the power of the 212000 power unit, hp. Cruising range - 15000 nautical miles at a speed of 33 knot. The crew of this type of ships was 2753-2978 people.

At the time of construction, the ships were equipped with the following weapons - 9 mm 406 guns, which were located in three towers, 20 mm guns in ten turrets, as well as mm 127 and 40 mm automatic anti-aircraft guns.

In June, 1938, the project was approved building ships like "Iowa". Total planned to build six ships. In 1939, they issued orders for the construction of Iowa and New Jersey.

Note that the construction of battleships was carried out at an unprecedented pace. Electric welding was used, which is not typical for that time. The first pair of ships entered service in 1943 year. Place flagship took the battleship "Iowa". He was distinguished by increased wheelhouse.

The second pair of Missouri and Wisconsin was built for the 1944 year. Initially, the corps of the third pair - "Kentucky" and "Illinois" - were laid as "Ohio" and "Montana" - the first and second battleship of the type "Montana". But in the 1940, the Emergency Military Shipbuilding Program was adopted, so they were used to build the Iowa battleships. But these ships were waiting for a sad fate - the construction was frozen after the war, and in 1950-s they were sold on metal.

Iowa type ships entered the combat duty on 27 August 1943. They were sent to the area of ​​the island of Newfoundland to repel a likely attack from the German battleship Tirpitz, which, according to intelligence, was in Norwegian waters.

At the end of 1943, the battleship delivered President Franklin Roosevelt to Casablanca at the Tehran Allied Conference. After the conference, the president was taken to the USA on it.

2 January 1944 of the Year Iowa visited the Pacific Ocean as the flagship of the 7 Linear Division, receiving a baptism of fire during operations in the Marshall Islands. From January 29 to February 3, the ship provided support for aircraft carrier strikes at the Enolvetok and Kwajalein atolls, and then strikes at the Japanese base on Truk Island. Until December 1944, the battleship was actively involved in hostilities in the Pacific. With it, three enemy aircraft were shot down.

January 15, 1945 "Iowa" arrived at the port of San Francisco for overhaul. On March 19, 1945 she was sent to Okinawa, where she arrived on April 15. On April 24, 1945, the ship provided support to aircraft carriers that covered the landing of American troops in Okinawa. From May 25 to June 13, Iowa bombarded the southern areas of Kyushu. July 14-15, the ship took part in attacks on the Japanese metropolis on the island of Hokkaido - Muroran. July 17-18 in attacks on the city of Hitaki on the island of Honshu. Until the cessation of hostilities on August 15, 1945, the ship supported the actions of formations aviation.

29 August 1945 of the Year The Iowa entered the territory of Tokyo Bay as part of the occupying forces, as Admiral Halsey's flagship. And on September 2 participated in the signing of the surrender by the Japanese authorities.



The second battleship of the series - “New Jersey” sailed to Funafuti on Ellis Island on January 23, 1944 to strengthen the air defense of the ships of the Pacific fleet. Already on February 17, the battleship had to engage in naval combat with destroyers and light cruisers of the Japanese fleet. The ship also took part in operations off the coast of the islands of Okinawa and Guam, and provided cover during the raid to the Marshall Islands. Anti-aircraft gunners of the ship managed to bring down four Japanese torpedo bombers.

After Japan’s capitulation was signed, New Jersey was based in Tokyo Bay, taking the place of the flagship of the American squadron until January 18, 1946.

The battleship Missouri provided support to the American marines in the bloody battles for the islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. There, he was attacked several times by kamikaze aircraft, which could not cause serious damage to the ship. True, the dent from one of them can be seen now. Total battleship battleship shot down six Japanese aircraft. The ship also took part in the shelling of the islands of Hokkaido and Honshu.

After the end of the Second World War 2 September 1945, the commander-in-chief of the Allied forces, General Douglas McCart, accepted the unconditional Japanese surrender. The official ceremony took place in the Tokyo Bay on board the battleship Missouri.

Battleship "Wisconsin" got escort aircraft carrier connections in the Pacific Ocean. During this time, he shot down three enemy aircraft, supported the landing of paratroopers on Okinawa with fire. During the final stage of the war shelling the coast of the island of Honshu.

18 December 1944, the battleship took part in the fighting of the 3 fleet in the Philippine Sea approximately 480 kilometers from Luzon Island, where it hit the center of a powerful typhoon. Before the onset of inclement weather, bunkering of ships at sea was carried out. The strongest storm sank three American destroyers. Killed 790 sailors, still 80 injured. On three aircraft carriers 146 aircraft were completely or partially destroyed. Moreover, the battleship commander reported on only two sailors who were slightly injured.

It is worth noting that during the Second World War, the battleships for the most part could not meet the expectations that were placed on them. There was not a single general battle for supremacy on the sea between battleships, and artillery duels were very rare. In addition, it turned out that the battleships are very vulnerable to attacks by submarines and aircraft. After the end of hostilities, all countries ceased to produce warships of this class, so the unfinished battleships went on metal.

Many experts note that the era of guided missiles and atomic bombs has now begun, so the battleships are outdated, like warships. And indeed, after the American tests on the Bikini Atoll and the Soviet in Novaya Zemlya, it turned out that after an explosion equivalent to 20 kt in an area with a radius of 300-500 meters, ships of all classes would be sunk.

Thus, now appeared effective weapon against surface ships - planes with nuclear charges, but to say that the battleships have become unnecessary, not worth it.

A bomb dropped from a height of 9-11 kilometers, deviation of about 400-500 meters. The duration of its fall with a parachute reaches three minutes. During this time, a ship traveling at a speed of 30 nodes can travel 2.5 kilometers. The battleships had every opportunity to evade a bomb. In addition, the air defense of the ship could bring down the aircraft carrier is still on the way.

The battleships that were designed for artillery duels would become a “tough nut” for anti-ship missiles, their armor reliably protects against the new “super weapons” that was created to destroy aircraft carriers.

Such ships were indispensable for strikes along the coast and support of the landing force. In the 1949 year, already in reserve, they were again returned to service. At this time, the Korean war began, in which all four battleships participated. Moreover, they did not fire at the squares, but were responsible for “pinpoint” strikes to support the ground forces. These were very effective shelling - an explosion of one 1225-kilogram projectile is comparable in power to several dozens of howitzer shells. True, the Koreans fired back. March 15 The Wisconsin 1951 was fired from a coastal battery as part of the 152-mm guns near the town of Samjin. At the level of the main deck, between 144 and 145 frames, there was a hole in the starboard. Three sailors were injured. 19 March 1953, the ship received an order to leave the combat area.

21 March 1953, the battleship New Jersey came under fire from enemy coastal artillery. 152-mm projectile hit the roof of the main artillery turret, causing minor damage. The second shell hit the stern engine room. As a result, one person died. Three more were injured. The ship went to the base in Norfolk for repairs.

The battleship of New Jersey is firing on the Korean coast, January 1953.


After the end of the Korean War, the battleships again went into reserve, though not for long. The Vietnam War began, so the ships again became popular. In the area of ​​hostilities went to "New Jersey". This time the ship fired on the square. According to some military experts, one ship was able to replace about fifty fighter-bombers. Only, neither anti-aircraft batteries, nor bad weather could prevent it - support was provided in any conditions.



During the Vietnam War, the battleships also showed their best. At the same time, sixteen-inch shells did not hit the pocket of American taxpayers, since during the Second World War there were a lot of them.



From 1981 to 1988 of the year, all four ships underwent a deep modernization. In particular, they were equipped with eight launchers of BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles - four missiles in each installation, as well as four AGM-84 Harpoon four-rocket launchers, Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery systems, new communication systems and radar.



28 December 1982 held a solemn ceremony to commission the first representative of the missile battleships - "New Jersey", which was attended by US President Ronald Reagan. After the program of trials and training in the waters of the Pacific, the ship took up its "main duties" - pressure on the unfriendly US regime, demonstrating strength in various "hot" points. In July, 1983, the battleship patrolled the coast of Nicaragua, and then went to the Mediterranean. December 14 "New Jersey" used the main caliber guns for fire on the positions of Syrian air defense in the territory of southern Lebanon. Total 11 high-explosive shells were fired. 8 February 1984 was fired on Syrian positions in the Bekaa Valley. The guns of the battleship fired 300 shells. With this act of retaliation, the US military took revenge for the downed French, Israeli and American aircraft. The guns destroyed the command post, which housed several senior officers and a Syrian army general.

In February 1991, the Iowa type battleships took part in the war against Iraq. On the territory of the Persian Gulf were based two battleships - "Wisconsin" and "Missouri." At the first stage of the war, missiles were used, for example, Missouri fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at the enemy's 28.



And in February, 406-mm guns were connected to the shelling. Iraq concentrated a large number of military equipment on the coast of occupied Kuwait - it was a tempting target for heavy guns of battleships. February 4 Missouri opened fire from a combat position near the Kuwaiti-Saudi border. For three days, the guns of the ship fired an 1123 shot. During Operation Missouri also helped coalition forces clear the Persian Gulf from Iraqi naval mines. By this time, the war was over.



6 February was replaced by the Wisconsin, which was able to crush the enemy artillery battery from a distance of 19 miles. Then there were strikes on weapons depots and fuel depots. February 8 was destroyed by a battery near Ras al-Haji.

On February 21, both battleships set off for a new position to bombard the areas of Al-Shuayba and El-Kulaya, as well as the island of Failaka. The ships also supported the advance of the anti-Iraq coalition forces. February 26th shelling tanks and fortifications near Kuwait International Airport.

It is worth noting that the battleships conducted their artillery shelling from a distance of 18-23 miles, as the approach was hampered by mines and shallow water. However, this was enough for effective fire. In point shooting, approximately 28% of direct hits were observed or, at a minimum, the target received serious damage. The number of misses was approximately 30%. To correct the shooting, Pioneer drones were used, which changed helicopters.

It is worth mentioning about a funny battle episode that took place during Operation Desert Storm. During the preparation for the shelling of the Faylak Island, the battleship poisoned the drone to adjust the fire. At the same time, the operator should have led him as low as possible so that the enemy could understand what was awaiting him. Noticing the drone, Iraqi soldiers raised white flags, signaling that they were giving up.

Perhaps this is the first time that the personnel surrendered to an unmanned vehicle.

After the end of the "cold war" began the withdrawal of battleships from service. 16 April 1989, the "first bell" sounded. A powder charge exploded inside the central 16-inch gun of the second turret. The explosion killed 47 people, and the gun itself was seriously damaged. The tower was able to contain most of the blast wave, so the crew in other compartments was almost not affected. They were saved by explosive doors that separated the powder cellar from the rest of the premises. The second tower was closed and sealed, it never worked again.

In 1990, the battleship "Iowa" was withdrawn from the battle fleet. He joined the reserve fleet of national defense. The ship was laid up on the territory of the naval education and training center in Newport until 8 March 2001. And from 21 April 2001 of the year to 28 of October 2011, he was parked in Sesun Bay.

Satellite image of Goole Earth: USS Iowa BB-61 parked in Sassun Bay, 2009g


October 28 The battleship 2011 was towed to the port of Richmond in California to repair before moving to a permanent berth in the port of Los Angeles. 9 June 2012, the ship was excluded from the list of craft. Since July 7 it was turned into a museum.

Operation "New Jersey" lasted until the year 1991. Until January 1995, the ship was in Bremengton, after which it was written off and transferred to the authorities of the state of New Jersey. October 15 2001, he turned into a museum.



Missouri was written off in 1995 year. He is now in Pearl Harbor, becoming part of a memorial in memory of the 1941 tragedy of the year.

October 14 2009, the battleship was placed on dry dock at the Pearl Harbor shipyard for a three-month overhaul, which ended in January of the 2010 year. Now the museum ship is located at the quay wall.

Goole Earth Satellite Image: USS Missouri BB-63 at Pearl Harbor


Wisconsin's career ended in September 1991. Until March 2006, he was in reserve. 14 December 2009, the American Navy transferred the ship to the city of Norfolk. 28 March 2012, the battleship included in the National Register of Historic Places, after which it lost the status of a warship.

Sources used:
AB Shirokorad "The fleet that destroyed Khrushchev"
http://korabley.net/news/linkori_tipa_aiova_vsem_linkoram_linkori/2008-11-22-62
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Линейные_корабли_типа_«Айова»
http://lifeatwave.ru/interest/231-qq-uss-missouri--
http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/07/06/battleships/
Author:
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Pamir210
    Pamir210 25 June 2013 08: 00 New
    17
    Save everything as museums.
    Good educational work.
  3. Vovka levka
    Vovka levka 25 June 2013 08: 24 New
    11
    They are able to design and build. The technological level is on top, that fact is fact.
  4. Iraclius
    Iraclius 25 June 2013 08: 37 New
    +5
    The battleships were pretty controversial. Some even dubbed them overgrown cruisers.
    From a military point of view, it is unfortunate that Iowa did not clash with the Japanese superlinkers one on one. Then they would know what the vaunted American troughs are worth. And drowning Yamato with an operational force is a dubious reason for pride.
    There is one more curious fact - the only case in world history when a battleship emerged victorious from a battle with aviation also belongs to these battleships. Although there is merit in the presence of radar and radio fuses.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 June 2013 09: 06 New
      10
      Quote: Iraclius
      And drowning Yamato with an operational force is a dubious reason for pride.


      In war, all means are good.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 29 New
        +4
        I do not deny it. The fact is that some adherents of the US Navy cite this fact as a vivid evidence of the superiority of American military art, which is not true.
        1. djon77
          djon77 27 June 2013 09: 58 New
          -1
          there is no American military art. there is a well-trained senior command staff. it is real if you weigh how many mistakes the American generals made, then they probably can be placed on the fingers of one hand
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 09: 44 New
      +3
      Quote: Iraclius
      There is one more curious fact - the only case in world history when a battleship emerged victorious from a battle with aviation also belongs to these battleships. Although there is merit in the presence of radar and radio fuses.

      This is what, sorry? :))
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 27 New
        +2
        The book by F. Sherman describes the episode when the battleship was distilled from the west coast of the USA and it was attacked by Japanese aircraft. As a result, the battleship was intact, but the planes were not. The only author himself admits that this is the merit of new radio fuses and poor training of the Japanese in the later stages of the war. I don’t remember the details - do not blame me, there are no books at hand right now.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 10: 37 New
          +2
          Ahhh, sorry. And then I don’t remember something like that - I’ll have to look in the sources myself.
          1. Iraclius
            Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 41 New
            +1
            Look, there is such an episode. He sunk into my memory in contrast to the fate of the much more powerful compound "Z".
    3. Pamir210
      Pamir210 25 June 2013 11: 59 New
      +2
      And how to drown the enemy?
      One on one? Calling for a fight?
      So this is for you at the Olympic Games.
      In the war it is necessary to win.
      And for this, use any of your advantages.
      Qualitative or quantitative.
    4. avt
      avt 25 June 2013 17: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      There is one more curious fact - the only case in world history when a battleship emerged victorious from a battle with aviation also belongs to these battleships.

      South Dakota seems to be the previous type before Iowa and after Carolyn.
      Quote: Iraclius
      And drowning Yamato with an operational force is a dubious reason for pride.
      Well, it is somehow more just, and in one case it’s kind of like beating an innocent baby, but on the other it’s a feat. request
      Quote: Iraclius
      Although there is merit in the presence of radar and radio fuses.

      Well, it is also impossible. What did they need to be "honest" to abardage and fight with swords? laughing Although the Japs made beautiful ships, I like their heavy cruisers, but the Amers could surpass them when the Baltimore launched their water, they somehow became more glorious both in architecture and technically.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 25 June 2013 17: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: avt
        South Dakota seems

        I wrote below that I don’t remember the details. In the book of F.K.Sherman this fact is described.
        It is possible that Yu. Dakota.

        Quote: avt
        Well, it is somehow more just, and in one case it’s kind of like beating an innocent baby, but on the other it’s a feat.

        Yes, I'm not talking about that. There was no feat. The Americans themselves are modestly silent about this fact. Well, the battleship ... Well, big ... Well, sank ... What is it, they say?
        But on our forum, some comrades for some reason can not help but kick the Japanese again, exposing this episode as something out of the ordinary. I wrote about this. request

        Quote: avt
        I like their heavy cruisers

        Takao class? I also love these ships. good
        1. avt
          avt 25 June 2013 19: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Iraclius
          Takao class? I also love these ships.

          good Mogami also look beautiful, Tone last too.
    5. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 25 June 2013 21: 05 New
      0
      Iraclius respected by something for an ideology (one on one), the war is not a duel .. and whoever gathered more strength and better used them then won ... (as well as a kindergarten I would show one on one)
      1. kavad
        kavad 30 June 2013 15: 00 New
        0
        Vo-in! Who will overtake whom - 200 schoolchildren or a running champion? 200 schoolchildren will not overtake the champion, but they are able to trample him!
    6. Basarev
      Basarev 26 January 2014 14: 26 New
      +1
      I also remember the story of the sinking of Bismarck. The British are extremely proud of how they drowned a single battleship with an entire squadron
  5. mark1
    mark1 25 June 2013 08: 39 New
    +9
    Aren't there too many "museums", it looks more like a hidden reserve.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 25 June 2013 08: 55 New
      +4
      come on, reserve .. they’re easily drowning in exercises of three or four destroyers, they have this good in bulk
      1. Bongo
        25 June 2013 10: 11 New
        +5
        Yes, and they also heat up decommissioned aircraft carriers, in order to create artificial reefs.
    2. Bongo
      25 June 2013 10: 03 New
      +7
      There are about a dozen more ships as museums, including sailboats, the Queen Mary liner, cruisers and aircraft carriers. In addition, Fall River has former Soviet ones: a diesel submarine and a missile boat.
  6. Dima190579
    Dima190579 25 June 2013 08: 45 New
    +1
    Museum is a good way of conservation. Just in case. And then, as far as Americans are drawn into patriotism, visitors and income will always be in museums.
    1. Professor
      Professor 25 June 2013 09: 04 New
      16
      Yeah, you still cite the cruiser Aurora as an example of a "mothballed" ship. wink

      The article is a huge plus - there would be more of these, clearly interesting without snot and fanaticism.
      1. Bongo
        25 June 2013 09: 29 New
        +7
        Thank you, professor!
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 June 2013 11: 28 New
        +8
        Quote: Professor
        Yeah, you still cite the cruiser Aurora as an example of a "mothballed" ship.

        The cruiser "Aurora" was recently overhauled. So he can shoot one more time in the direction of the "Winter Palace"
        1. Professor
          Professor 25 June 2013 12: 19 New
          -7
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The cruiser "Aurora" was recently overhauled. So he can shoot one more time in the direction of the "Winter Palace"

          No, thanks. So one blank shot and 70 years of devastation. wink
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 June 2013 16: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            No, thanks. So one blank shot and 70 years of devastation.

            The repair was actually made.
            1. Professor
              Professor 25 June 2013 21: 09 New
              -1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              The repair was actually made.

              I am aware of the repair. Shoigu even threatened to return the cruiser to its original form ...
          2. Old skeptic
            Old skeptic 25 June 2013 17: 19 New
            +2
            Remind you who were 70% of these so-called "revolutionaries"?
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 25 June 2013 19: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Old Skeptic
              Remind you who were 70% of these so-called "revolutionaries"?

              Sailors of Kronstadt, workers of Petrograd, soldiers of the Petrograd garrison. Correct answer?
              1. old man54
                old man54 26 June 2013 10: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: Aaron Zawi
                Sailors of Kronstadt, workers of Petrograd, soldiers of the Petrograd garrison. Correct answer?

                no, the answer is not correct, you 2 and go learn history!
                Those whom you mentioned are the people who actually ran across the battlefields and cities with rifles and machine guns "MAXIM". But they were led both at the time of the revolution and later, during the civil war, by 80/85% were Jews! And if it were not for Lenin in 1917 with his Russian part of the "Bolshekviks", as they were later called (although in reality they were a minority), the Jews would have been 100% in the machinery of government in 1917.


                here is the last "pleasant" and sentimental news for the Jews! :)))
                http://blagin-anton.livejournal.com/243266.html
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 25 June 2013 22: 40 New
          +4
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The cruiser "Aurora" was recently overhauled. So he can shoot one more time in the direction of the "Winter Palace"

          Shooting at Winter is sheer barbarism, there is now nothing but a museum. Now, if the "Aurora" to overtake the river to Moscow, options are possible.
          It would be nice to drive her into the Potomac and declare impeachment of 6-inch Obama. But I am afraid the old woman does not have enough health to cross the ocean.
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 25 June 2013 22: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Nagan
            Now, if the "Aurora" to drive the river to Moscow
            What a coincidence or a sign, but "Aurora" is already there, judging by the reproduction above your comment on the page: COMMENTS wassat
          2. old man54
            old man54 26 June 2013 10: 58 New
            +3
            The author has long been poured with cement to the bottom and her power plant has also been dismantled for a long time!
            And USA ... Asmi will collapse, relatively soon, and with a tremendous roar!
      3. engineer74
        engineer74 25 June 2013 11: 41 New
        +4
        "Yeah, you still cite the cruiser Aurora as a" mothballed "ship."
        He is canned, one shot (idle !!!) and the whole world has changed! Such weapons, even we do not scatter! smile
      4. Revolver
        Revolver 25 June 2013 22: 31 New
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        Yeah, you still cite the cruiser Aurora as an example of a "mothballed" ship.

        The Japanese won the battleship Mikasa "mothballed", the same one that was the flagship of Admiral Togo at Tsushima. Of course it brings negative emotions, but still the Japanese are great, they remember and store their history.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 June 2013 09: 50 New
      +4
      Their boilers are already at the limit, and all mechanisms are extremely worn out, it is useless to capitalize them, because they don’t release anymore ... so this is not a reserve, but a museum.
      1. mark1
        mark1 25 June 2013 11: 33 New
        +4
        Maybe these are "museums", but before transferring these ships to the balance sheets of the states, they all underwent repairs, including major ones, so the boilers and mechanisms should be in order.
        These are the latest artillery ships, their task is to work along the shore - what if they are needed !?
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 26 June 2013 02: 59 New
          +1
          I don’t know how battleships are, but from the USS Intrepid aircraft carrier one shell remained, even the screws were removed. However, there is still nothing to twist these screws, because cars were removed to free up the area for museum exhibits. But the museum is cool, although I remember Aurora, adjusted for size, also had something to see.
          1. Bongo
            26 June 2013 04: 13 New
            +4
            Here it is, among other aircraft, on the deck of the SR-71:
  7. smart ass
    smart ass 25 June 2013 09: 01 New
    +2
    I wish I could see the duel of Iowa with Yamato in the rial)
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 25 June 2013 10: 44 New
      +6
      From the deck of one of them ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 June 2013 10: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Clever man
        from to see in the rial Iowa duel with Yamato)

        With great pleasure.
        Quote: Volkhov
        From the deck of one of them.

        Not this, thank you - there are all around the jappa and the Yankesses. So the best thing is a movie dock)))

        not Iowa of course, but better not come across.

    2. Iraclius
      Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 45 New
      +1
      I’m pretty sure that there wouldn’t be anything interesting there. One on one would be about the same as in the battle of the Commander Islands in an artillery duel between Nati and Salt Lake City. Those. nothing. And this despite the fact that the Japanese corrected the fire from a seaplane.
      For three hours of battle at extreme distances, damage is more than modest. request
      Unless, of course, exclude force majeure. Type of explosion of cellars.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass 25 June 2013 13: 15 New
        +1
        It seems like I heard that the percentage of hits at maximum distances during the Second World War was 5%)
  8. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 25 June 2013 09: 40 New
    +1
    It seems to me that in modern warfare they are unpromising, too large and clumsy, and modern weapons will allow us to fight at great distances and it turns out that the battleship loses its main advantage.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 34 New
      +3
      In Peter Albano's book "The Seventh Aircraft Carrier" there is an episode where the hypothetical seventh aircraft carrier from the I. Yamamoto formation, who survived the war in the Pacific Ocean, attacks Iowa in Pearl Harbor today. When a cloud of Japanese piston aircraft attacks the battleship, the Falanx launchers spit out their ammunition in a matter of seconds and powerlessly fall silent. With a completely predictable result for a battleship. laughing
      This is me to the fact that modern multi-barrel anti-aircraft guns are actually nothing more than weapons of last chance. And the chance is, as you know, not a pay, not an advance ... hi
  9. avt
    avt 25 June 2013 09: 40 New
    +3
    Beautiful ships good and it’s a pity that the last project “Montana” in metal didn’t appear with 12 in 4 towers, so it would look even cooler like “Iowa” against the background of “South Dakota”.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 38 New
      +2
      And then it would be possible to rivet some sort of battleship versions of Atlanta air defense cruisers. Only with 406 mm guns in 8 towers. Kapets Iraqi commando.wassat
  10. Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 June 2013 09: 53 New
    +2
    At first, Oleg Kaptsov thought, he decided to run through the battleships, but no, not his feather ... But still interesting, the dreadnought never ceases to excite men's hearts ...
  11. Kars
    Kars 25 June 2013 10: 26 New
    +3
    Cool ships, don’t say that. Although the last Italians are more recent to me. Still the reservation scheme is not nravitsa - all or nothing.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 51 New
      +1
      The reservation scheme, as well as the supply of shells without a reloading compartment, described in the article are the main Achilles heels of the battleship.
      It is not for nothing that the Americans themselves ambiguously called them "fast battleships." To skip faster. You never know ... lol
    2. Kars
      Kars 25 June 2013 10: 57 New
      +2
      ______________
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 June 2013 10: 58 New
        +3
        Shot from .. Sea battle ..
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 June 2013 10: 59 New
          +2
          ________________
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 June 2013 11: 03 New
            +2
            North Carolina of course but will do.
          2. Bongo
            26 June 2013 04: 16 New
            +4
            There, if I’m not mistaken, Wisconsin was filmed, but I haven’t seen a crazy movie ....
  12. crambol
    crambol 25 June 2013 10: 34 New
    -8
    American battleships like "Iowa"


    In Iowa
    The cow died.
    In Iowa
    Very ... hard, comrades!
  13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 10: 38 New
    +3
    And I'm more "the last of the Mohicans" - the British "Vanguard" like
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 25 June 2013 10: 56 New
      +3
      Me too.
      The location of the main barrels is more rational. And the booking is real - "battleship".
      True, the last of the Mohicans. good
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 June 2013 11: 00 New
        +2
        But how much it was built, of course, the war brought in corrections - and the GK towers from the Royal Navi zapsniki.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 11: 48 New
        +2
        Yeah ... but the caliber is small (381 meme) - but the tower is a naval analogue of Kalash in terms of reliability. Anyway, the British fifteen-inch is a classic ... He would have finished adding 133-mm to his mind - it would have been very beautiful.
        1. old man54
          old man54 25 June 2013 19: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yeah ... but the caliber is small (381 meme) - but the tower is a naval analogue of Kalash in terms of reliability. Anyway, the British fifteen-inch is a classic ...

          why do you admire his GC so much? The Vanguard's turret and guns are old, dating back to the 1st World War. and technologies and angles and speeds of rotation are the same! All this was not from a good life. So ... it's strange to me, your admiration.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 22: 41 New
            +2
            Quote: old man54
            and why are you so admire his GK?

            Because the tower and the gun are magnificent, I admire it. It was not for nothing that I called her Kalashnikov — reliable as a bayonet. And as for the indicators of armor penetration ...
            Take french xnumx mm. The shell of the Englishwoman - 380 kg at an initial speed of 871 m / s. The Frenchwoman was made much more powerful - 752 kg at 890 m / s ... but when tested by shooting, they realized that they had reformed the gun, so that the initial speed was quickly dropped to 830 m / s and the projectile weight was reduced to 785 kg.
            At the same time, the French four-gun tower weighed almost 2500 tons, while the two two-gun English towers weighed 1500 tons. Those. GC Richelieu weighed 5 thousand tons, and GC Wengard weighed about 3 thousand tons.
            Shooting accuracy ... How many kilometers did Worspite fill the Italian battleship with? Italian 381-mm at such distances gave cover without hitting - the expansion was too big. vertical guidance speed - 5 degrees per second, horizontal - 2 degrees / second ... this is a bit compared to the new towers of the USA, Germany, etc. - 406-mm USA were twice as fast (12 hail and 4 hail) - but this is absolutely not fatal, it’s not possible to shoot at planes
  14. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 25 June 2013 11: 45 New
    +2
    The photo is clickable, more visible.
    The high nose “Vengard” allowed to maintain driving and combat qualities in almost any weather, even in a strong storm. Successful contours and load distribution made pitching smooth and insignificant. In joint maneuvers after the war, in which Wangard and American battleships such as Iowa took part, the British battleship, despite its smaller size, perfectly behaved in a bad way
    the weather, when his American colleague suffered greatly from pitching. In general, impromptu turned out to be successful, and the British sailors were very warm about Wangard, which, moreover, living conditions corresponded to modern, very increased requirements.



    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 11: 49 New
      +2
      And I have something lately the pictures completely refuse to insert crying
    2. Kars
      Kars 25 June 2013 12: 04 New
      +2
      LK Littorio ______
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 12: 28 New
        +2
        A rare muck ... Although outwardly beautiful
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 June 2013 15: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          A rare muck ... Although outwardly beautiful

          Well, Wengard is not particularly better if the MSA is thrown away in which a bunch of buns end the war and the post-war period.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 17: 19 New
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            Well, Vengard isn’t much better.

            Wengard’s armored belt is much wider (7,3 versus 4,4) and longer (140 versus 120 m) despite the fact that the Italian BP was not significantly stronger. In general, I doubt that he was stronger ... the extremities of the Italian have no armor protection, unlike Vengard. Deck booking is approximately equivalent. The British’s PTZ is better (worse than the Italian PTZ, in my opinion, it didn’t exist at all). The Englishman’s artillery was better for the Englishman - it’s more reliable (the Italians seized guns regularly during the firing, not giving the required number of shots in the salvo) and more precisely (the Italians reformed - reason The anti-aircraft artillery is much better (we wave our hand on the 133-mm as unsuccessful, but the bofors are bofors, and even the eight-barrels of the pom-pom would still give better protection than the Littorio submachine guns) The Englishman's sailing is obviously better.
            1. Kars
              Kars 25 June 2013 19: 26 New
              +1
              Come on, it’s still not very good, however much how much and when it was built.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the Italian BP was not much stronger

              Well, Italian spaced booking is more to my liking
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the ends of the Italians have no armor protection, unlike Vengard

              Really?

              Of course I understand your zeal, but I think it’s not worth starting. There is also about the artillery - the guns of the Italians were quite good, 50 gauge long.
              And there are 9 of them
              1. Kars
                Kars 25 June 2013 19: 27 New
                +1
                _________________
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 21: 06 New
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                Well, Italian spaced booking is more to my liking

                From the fact that you prefer it, it does not become stronger. To remove the armor-piercing cap, the 70 mm will not be enough, and without it, it’s just 350 mm of armor and that's it.
                Quote: Kars
                Of course I understand your zeal, but I think you should not start

                Of course not worth it. Better take the book from which you copied and pasted the quote, open it ON THE SAME page from where you copied it (the book is called "Mussolini's Superlinkors", if you forgot) and look at the booking scheme, which is drawn on the SAME PAGE on the left.
                Still not clear?
                What you quoted here is an armored belt outside the citadel on xnumx meters in the nose He does not cover the fore end :))) Stern - even more so.
                Dear Kars, even if this is not clear, then try to add 120 m of the citadel’s length and 35 m of additional armor belt (hint - you will get 155) and now compare it with 224 meters of the length of the battleship.
                Quote: Kars
                As for artillery, the cannons of the Italians were quite good, long in 50 calibers.

                Well, yes - formally. In fact, the French, having cannons of about the same performance characteristics, urgently deformed them according to the results of their use. Plus - Italians' installations were not reliable.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 25 June 2013 21: 58 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  To remove the armor-piercing cap, 70 mm will not be enough, but without it it is just 350 mm of armor and that’s all.

                  Even without removal it is better
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Dear Kars

                  Your dear near the push
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Stern - even more so.


                  The Wangard reservation scheme was practically the same as that used on the King George V type and non-built “Lyons”. The danger of increasing the terms of the development of the project excluded the possibility of a significant change in the location of the armor provided for in the terms of reference in 1939. However, the British did not express any doubts about the chosen option, however not tested by enemy shells.

                  As before, the main belt, 140 m long, was located on the outer skin of the hull, but it was thinned by 1 inch. It had a thickness of 356 mm in the area of ​​the cellars (instead of 381 mm on the King George V) and 343 mm in the central part (instead of 356 mm) and consisted of three rows of armor plates arranged horizontally (with the long side parallel to the waterline). The British continued to use this archaic version due to the impossibility of producing high quality slabs with a length of 7,3 m (the full height of the belt on Vanguard), but taking all precautions in connecting the slabs to each other and fixing them to the body.


                  What about weak armor gross?
                  Other disadvantages were associated with the design of the tower. Its frontal plate was clearly insufficient thickness - 229 mm. The roof (114 mm) was also considered too thin for protection from mounted fire and bombs. The maximum elevation angle did not provide firing at distances over 12 miles. Flameproof towers (designed before the lessons of Jutland) also did not meet the standards of the 40s.

                  The frontal plate was replaced with a 343 mm, in which higher embrasures were cut, providing an elevation angle of 30 g. Due to the fact that the turret used natural balancing of the guns at the center of gravity, the trunnions were at a considerable distance from the inclined frontal plate, although an additional counterweight was hung on the breech. At the same time, the ports turned out to be quite large, and they had to be covered with special armored covers. The roof, which now consisted of cementless Kruppov slabs with a thickness of 152 mm, was also replaced

                  But even with it, it was possible to achieve quite acceptable characteristics: in terms of penetration of armor at long distances, the updated 381-mm gun was almost as good as the Nelson’s 406-mm gun, and when using an enhanced charge it even slightly exceeded it. When compared with the 356-mm gun, which was the main armament of the King George V type, there is a noticeable gain at all distances. However, foreign 15-inches (with the exception of German) had better ballistics

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Well, yes - formally.
                  Well, yes, formally, Vengard was very tested and everything worked.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 25 June 2013 22: 01 New
                    +1
                    ________________
                    By the way, Litorio is slightly smaller than Vengard and was built 5 years earlier.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 22: 19 New
                      +2
                      In Hungary, they used a booking system similar to King George, and those with Littorio had less than 2,5 years of difference. Or will you prove that Wengard’s defense takes into account military experience? :)
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 22: 16 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    Your dear near the push

                    Dear Kars, do you want to know how you get your messages from? From a push - from a push (although, in principle, it is noticeable)
                    Quote: Kars
                    Even without removal it is better

                    Will we compare the quality of Italian and English armor? :) Better not, honestly. This is time. Second, the tilt by 14 degrees really improves the armor protection - but only by reducing the covered area - in fact, the thickness of the armor grows as much as the height of the armor belt "decreases" due to the tilt. But okay, this is higher mathematics for you, you won't understand.
                    The point is that the English armored belt covered more than 1,5 times greater height than the Italian. If you do not understand what this means - well, read Puzyrevsky for starters, then we'll talk. (a riddle - how many shells that hit the battleship’s hull hit the armored belt?)
                    Quote: Kars
                    What about weak armor gross?

                    And on the drum to a weaker tower armor. Because a direct hit does not usually stand the tower (well, if only a rebound) - if the armor is not broken, it usually wedges anyway. On the other hand, the armored tower protects the guns, the protection of the towers practically does not affect the protection of artillery cellars.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 25 June 2013 22: 44 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Dear Kars, do you want to know how you get your messages from? From a push - from a push (although, in principle, it is noticeable)

                      It is strange that you consider me your dear, I am not in an alternative orientation.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      It’s not necessary, Chesslovo. This time. The second - a 14-degree tilt really improves armor protection -


                      http://alternathistory.org.ua/optimalnaya-skhema-bronirovaniya-linkorov-vtoroi-m
                      irovoi
                      enlighten
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And on the drum to a weaker tower armor. Because a direct hit does not usually stand the tower (well, if only a rebound) - if the armor is not broken, it usually wedges anyway

                      Well, the Japanese with Yamato decided not to agree with you, and even the Angles themselves decided to make it thicker. It was evident that Lyon and the Battle of Jutland were remembered.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      On the other hand, the armored tower protects the guns, the protection of the towers practically does not affect the protection of artillery cellars

                      Yes, with artillery boats there, too, is not going smoothly.
                      By the way, what about PTZ?
                      The anti-torpedo protection (PTZ) of King George V-type battleships, based on extensive work on the Job-74 program carried out during the 30s, suffered a crushing fiasco during the attack of the Prince of Wells Japanese aircraft in the Gulf of Thailand

                      Nevertheless, the English designers retained all the basic elements of this underwater protection system at Wengard. This is mainly due to the fact that his project was already ready for the moment when the Japanese torpedoes drowned the Prince of Wells.
                      As “therapeutic measures” at Vengard, first of all, the total width of the PTZ was increased: on it it extended to a depth of 4,75 m. However, this, in principle, rather modest width, could not be reached throughout the citadel. The cellars of the extreme towers, where the width of the PTZ fell to 2,6–3 m, remained extremely vulnerable. The protection of the front boiler rooms was also not entirely satisfactory.


                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      similar to King George,
                      that is also not a fountain
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 23: 37 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        It’s strange that you consider me your dear

                        I call you "dear" because you are costing me too much — I was wasting my time on you for no reason.
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://alternathistory.org.ua/optimalnaya-skhema-bronirovaniya-linkorov-vtoroi-m

                        irovoi

                        good laughing laughing laughing
                        Kars, thank you, but since I am the author of this article, I’m unlikely to be able to grab something from it that I would not know now :))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, the Japanese with Yamato decided not to agree with you, and even the Angles themselves decided to make it thicker. It was evident that Lyon and the Battle of Jutland were remembered.

                        The Angles made the right conclusions from Jutland. The problem was not in the weak armor of the towers. (Hint - German LCR has multiple defeats of towers with penetration of armor - but for some reason there’s not one explosion)
                        As for strengthening the reservation of the towers - yes, it was a global trend. But we, using the afterthought, know that the increased armor protection did not save the tower from trouble. Often, even a close hit could overrun the GK tower.
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, what about PTZ?

                        Yes, everything is bad. For Wangard, it was, frankly, not a fountain, but for Littorio it was even worse.
                        And about the Prince of Wales ... There was one small nuance that they prefer not to notice - the very first torpedo hit the bracket and bent the propeller shaft, but it was not immediately understood on the battleship and the shaft rotated for some time ... the heavy axis destroyed the bulkheads . The result was a complete depressurization of ALL compartments through which the shaft passed. Another torpedo (moreover, some researchers insist that it was the hit of two torpedoes in one place) disables the generator. I would say that the Englishman was very unlucky.
                        But in any case, Wells sank, having received either 6 or 7 torpedoes. Littorio had three.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 26 June 2013 11: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I call you "dear" because you cost me too much - I waste my time on you without any sense

                        Well, nobody is forcing you to do this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The Angles made the right conclusions from Jutland

                        You move away from the topic. Jutland and Lyon are completely different from where you are trying to lead.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        (Hint - German LCR has multiple defeats of towers with penetration of armor - but for some reason there’s not one explosion)
                        What is the hint? That the towers burned out with everyone who was there? And repairs for many months?


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        . But we, using the afterthought, know that the increased armor protection did not save the tower from trouble. Often, even a close hit could overrun the GK tower.

                        Well, wedging is terrible)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes, everything is bad. For Wangard, it was, frankly, not a fountain, but for Littorio it was even worse.
                        But are you saying that the Pulzen system is worse? That is, the depth of BTZ Vengard in 4.75 meters is better than PTZ Litorio in 7.22 meters?

                        The cellars of the extreme towers, where the width of the PTZ fell to 2,6–3 m, were still extremely vulnerable. The protection of the front boiler rooms was also not entirely satisfactory.


                        Against 5.51 and 5.89
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There was one small nuance that they prefer not to notice

                        Really not to notice?
                        http://ship.bsu.by/text/4020 все и про вал и тд написано. bully
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Littorio had three.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 14: 44 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        You move away from the topic. Jutland and Lyon are completely different from where you are trying to lead.

                        Dear Kars, you mentioned Jutland and Lyon (neither to the village nor to the city). And I'm leaving the topic? :))
                        Quote: Kars
                        What is the hint? That the towers burned out with everyone who was there? And repairs for many months?

                        M-ya ... Kars, will you ever begin to make the conclusions yourself from what you read, or do I need to explain everything to you? Do you know the thickness of the reservation towers of the same Derflinger? And the quality of the English half-armor-piercing, which the Britons fought in Jutland? And the quality of the same British armor-piercing 381-mm post-war? And what kind of armor could save them, eh, Kars? Well, will you bring, for example, the thickness of the front plate to 500-600 mm ... But from such a hit, who will protect the tower? Http: //www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/Draw/04.jpg
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, wedging is terrible)))

                        Dear Kars, you will not believe, but the Germans on Scharnhorst were very upset when a 356-mm shell from Duke overlapped the Anton tower
                        Quote: Kars
                        But are you saying that the Pulzen system is worse? That is, the depth of BTZ Vengard in 4.75 meters is better than PTZ Litorio in 7.22 meters?

                        laughing Dear Kars, well, you yourself have surpassed yourself :)))) No, of course, AT THE MIDDLE OF LITTORIO 7,57 meters of Pugliès surpassed the Wangard PTZ. Probably:)))
                        The calculated resistance to an underwater explosion was 350 kg of TNT. In practice, this could not be achieved mainly due to the insufficient strength of riveted joints (especially in the area of ​​fastening the outer cylindrical bulkhead to the bottom structures), only partially supported by electric welding. In addition, the inner hollow thin-walled cylinder showed strength significantly higher than the calculated one, "unwilling" to deform and absorb the energy of an underwater explosion. The flooding of large cylinder cavities during an underwater explosion could cause significant roll formation. To prevent this phenomenon, a powerful anti-roll system was used, which automatically leveled the roll by counter-flooding the corresponding compartments of the opposite side.

                        But here's the bad thing - the width of the PTZ on the midship is generally neither exhaustive nor a determining indicator of the unsinkability of the ship. You, dear Kars, better explain to the English torpedoes that the ship with such an excellent PTZ of all 3 British air torpedoes had no moral right to sink :)))))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really not to notice?

                        True. After all, I wrote "do not notice", and by no means "do not write" :))) Here is your link written, and many more where, people read, but do not notice what they read. And they never know how many torpedoes hit Wells and where and how many in Littorio and where. And all of them think that Littorio's PTZ is comparable to Vanguard's PTZ. Because "reading" and "understanding what you have read" are very different things :)))))))
                        Tell me, why did you post another copy-paste? About TWO torpedoes that hit Littorio when I wrote about THREE? :)
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 26 June 2013 15: 34 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Dear Kars, you mentioned Jutland and Lyon (neither to the village nor to the city). And I'm leaving the topic? :))

                        Also say that Vengard has not old towers, and Lyon they did not suffer.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        RS, will you ever start to make a thread of conclusions from what you’ve already read, or do I need to explain everything to you?
                        Matter something to yourself, that the Angles did not leave the old tower armor, but began to increase)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Orogoy Kars, you will not believe, but the Germans on Scharnhorst were very upset when a 356-mm shell from Duke overlapped the Anton turret

                        Surely they would be less upset if everyone in that tower was burned in the Anton tower.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Dear Kars, well, you yourself have surpassed yourself :)))) No, of course, AT THE MIDDLE OF LITTORIO 7,57 meters of Pugliès surpassed the Wangard PTZ. Probably:)))
                        Are you dumb? She excelled at the end towers)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        The cellars of the extreme towers remained extremely vulnerable, where the width of the PTZ fell to 2,6–3 m. Also, the protection of the front boiler rooms was not entirely satisfactory.


                        Against 5.51 and 5.89


                        So walk Vasya, PTZ Vengard in flight.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You, dear Kars, better explain to the English torpedoes that the ship with such an excellent PTZ only 3 British aviatorpedi had no moral right to drown :)))))))

                        It is entirely possible that Vengard would also have sunk away, yet it was unforgettable that the explosions of the torpedoes were in shallow water, which strengthened the effect. And those torpedoes that caused minor damage in Litoria would have incapacitated Vengard completely.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        . And they all think that the PTZ Littorio is comparable to the PTZ Vengard.
                        PTZ Vengarda significantly inferior to Litorio.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        About TWO torpedoes that hit Littorio when I wrote about THREE? :)
                        Are you stupid? The third one got into the area where there was no PTZ there just this is mentioned.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 21: 10 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you dumb

                        Quote: Kars
                        Push something to yourself

                        Quote: Kars
                        So walk Vasya

                        Dear Kars, you are as always predictable - the argument ended (however, it didn’t even begin for you) a tantrum came into play. I’m reading your comments and thinking - who are you, a boy or a girl?
                        Quote: Kars
                        she excelled at the end towers)))

                        Learn to read, dear Kars :)))) PTZ Littorio, all of her seven and a half meters, were counted on confronting 350 kg of explosives. But PTZ Wells were counting on the confrontation 400 kg of the same explosive. The thing is, dear Kars, that the PTZ power depends (surprise-surprise!) Not only on its width, but also on the system. And the Puglieze pipe did not justify itself - in general, and nothing at all. Therefore, CALCULATED 4 + m Wells were protected from 400 kg of TNT, and 7,5 Littorio - only from 350 kg. Well, in practice, both systems were dead, but still Wells from 3 torpedoes did not go to the bottom. Unlike Littorio, the WTZ still improved on Wengard.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you stupid? The third got into the area where there was no PTZ there it is just mentioned.

                        Dear Kars, "epic denials" are your part. Maybe in 50 years it will come to you that a working PTZ is when a battleship does not sink. And the indignant and offended squeak "and she did not get to PTZ"! - it's about nothing. Well, I would understand if Lakishot happened there. But generally speaking, a normal WWII battleship should remain buoyant even with destroyed extremities.
                        Explore Wells at your leisure. You learn a lot for yourself.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 26 June 2013 21: 27 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        you are always predictable - the argument ended

                        No, you just do not accept the arguments and read poorly)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But PTZ Wells were counting on the confrontation of 400 kg of the same explosive.

                        Deshovy my Chelyabinsk citizen - Calculate this one, but the implementation is different and Well showed it perfectly. Against Japanese aviatorpedi))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Therefore, CALCULATED 4+ m Wells were protected from 400 kg of TNT, and 7,5 Littorio - only from 350 kg
                        Well, it turns out that the British lounged more than the Italians? Vryatli Wengard would get off 533 mm torpedoes as easily as Vitorio Vinetto.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Unlike Littorio, the WTZ still improved on Wengard.
                        How is this unlike Littorio? Are you already talking? Made a little better than King George, but worse Litorio

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        that a working PTZ is when a battleship does not sink. And the indignant and offended squeak "and she did not get to PTZ"! -

                        It’s not you who are really stupid --- the quality of the PTZ is being discussed, but Littorio, like Wengard, doesn’t have the whole waterline. And the quality of the PTZ can be assessed precisely by getting into it.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Explore Wells at your leisure. Learn a lot for yourself
                        The fact that he drowned from the auto-torpedo with a charge much less than the calculation? And what's new to learn --- he went to the bottom almost on an even keel, and not the fact that he would not have drowned from a smaller number of torpedoes.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 26 June 2013 21: 39 New
                        +1
                        During his second (and fourth overall) torpedo attack, Prince of Wales received four hits. At 4-12, one torpedo exploded in the very nose, at the 23th frame, and the second at frame 9, both on the starboard side. A minute and a half later, 236 more torpedoes followed on the same side: one at the second main gun turret (frame 2), the other in the area of ​​the rear tower "Y", about the 109th frame.

                        The "soft" bow end was not able to withstand the explosion. Both sides at the stem were destroyed. A huge hole with jagged edges, over 6 m in diameter, gaped in the nose. The stem itself was also completely destroyed. However, the ship received the most damage in this attack from hitting the stern from the rear tower. As the examination of the remains of the battleship by divers showed, the torpedo hit either the outer shaft of the starboard side, or into its support. The shaft turned out to be bent inward, towards the body, and intersected with the inner shaft. Naturally, the turbines of Section "A" completely stopped.


                        By the way, there is a big difference with hitting the third toread in Littorio.
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 June 2013 07: 14 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Cheap my

                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you already talking?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Do not you really stupid

                        Dear Kars! Bye Bye!:)
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 27 June 2013 10: 20 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Dear Kars! Bye Bye!:)

                        Who would doubt what to say this time you completely failed, especially with the PTZ. Was it necessary for you?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrey from Chelyabinsk (1) June 25, 2013 12:28 ↑
                        A rare muck ... Although outwardly beautiful

                        ))))))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Or will you prove that Wengard’s defense takes into account military experience? :)

                        Even here he stumbled)))) In the defense of Vengard, the flaws of the kings were taken into account, but it did not work out to fix drastically.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course I understand your zeal, but I think you should not start

                        )))))))))))) hi
          2. Kars
            Kars 26 June 2013 11: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            ars, thank you, but since I am the author of this article, I’m unlikely to be able to grab something from it that I would not know now :))))


            Well, strangely you changed your mind about spaced reservations, and the conclusion about a rebound down well is very doubtful.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 14: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            Well, strangely you changed your mind

            Dear Kars, I haven’t changed my mind, but you haven’t mastered my article. Read ATTENTIVELY - all the answers are there :))) pay special attention to the thickness of the light armored belt that removes the armor-piercing cap. Then remember the angle of inclination of the armored belt Litttorio, add the angle of incidence of the projectile to it at the normal distance of the battle, solve the problem by sine / cosine and see the thickness 70 mm of the armored belt Littorio from the projectile's fall vector. And everything immediately falls into place :)))
            And if all this is very difficult, then take a word - the required 102 mm for guaranteed removal of the cap is not dialed.
            Quote: Kars
            and the conclusion about a rebound down well is very doubtful.

            This conclusion has nothing to do with it - the rendered 70-mm sheet will prevent the rebound
          4. Kars
            Kars 26 June 2013 15: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            st :))) pay special attention to the thickness of the light armored belt that removes the armor-piercing cap. Then remember the angle of inclination of the Litttorio armored belt, add the angle of incidence of the projectile to it at the normal battle distance, solve the problem by sine / cosine and see the thickness of 70 mm of the Litttorio armored belt according to the projectile fall vector


            I remember everything, and about concrete poured between the layers, and that the shells are not 406 mm and I remember the inclination --- so that Litorio's protection is better, which is confirmed by the calculations of free maneuvering.
            For areas of free maneuvering, Vengard is the least preferred among all the latest generation of battleships. True, given the very high quality of British-made armor, the following values ​​will look a little better for him (the boundaries of the zones are moved apart by an additional 15-20 cab.).


            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This conclusion has nothing to do with it - the rendered 70-mm sheet will prevent the rebound
            This is about the article on Alt history, assuming of course that it is yours.
  • builder
    builder 25 June 2013 18: 30 New
    +1
    “The Italians build ships better than they later float on them.” W. Churchill.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 25 June 2013 23: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: stroitel
      “The Italians build ships better than they later float on them.” W. Churchill.
      The pursuit of records negatively affected the fighting qualities of Mussolini's ships, however, what the Italians cannot refuse is the graceful beauty of the ships of the Italian school, which also influenced our fleet.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 25 June 2013 14: 19 New
    +1
    Sources:
    AB Shirokorad "The fleet that destroyed Khrushchev"


    Can someone explain what is at stake? What exactly did Khrushchev destroy?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 14: 37 New
      +2
      Ahhh, you did not read this masterpiece of scientific thought? In vain in vain. Highly recommend. Laughter prolongs life, and reading this creation you will laugh for a long time ...
      For example, in the afterword, Shirokorad wrote - if the USSR had commissioned all 4 Sevastopols and the four Izmailovs, then, having united with Nazi Germany, such a fleet would guarantee a landing in England, that is, to Zee Leve ...
      In general, a very arriginal creation, heavily mixed in with fierce, furious hatred for Chelomei (it feels like Chelomei bit the author in his childhood) Of course - half of the book is reserved for the description of ship weapons, this is Shirokorad’s as always.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 25 June 2013 15: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        For example, in the afterword, Shirokorad wrote - if the USSR had commissioned all 4 Sevastopols and the four Izmailovs, then, having united with Nazi Germany, such a fleet would guarantee a landing in England, that is, to Zee Leve ...

        Wow

        I foresaw that he would lament over the cancellation of the completion of Stalingrad and a number of 68 bis

        "Khrushch destroyed the fleet" is an axiom. The birth of a nuclear submarine fleet and naval missile weapons, of course, is not taken into account.
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 June 2013 15: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "Khrushch destroyed the fleet" is an axiom

          Still heavy tanks and artillery))))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "The fleet that destroyed Khrushchev"

          I have not yet appeared on Flibust))) but I checked when I went in
          The time of the big guns. Battle of Leningrad and Sevastopol (fb2)


          And about Shirokorad in artillery, besides him, call him something to read.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 16: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I foresaw that he would lament over the cancellation of the completion of Stalingrad and a number of 68 bis

          Of course, where without it!
      2. old man54
        old man54 26 June 2013 11: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        then, having united with fascist Germany, such a fleet guaranteed a landing in England, that is, Zee Leve ...

        Germany itself, without the USSR, could have ripped Britain of the 40/41 model, if the same British had not outplayed the Germans on the front "plscha and dagger" and pushed Hitler to attack the USSR. The war on 2 fronts also killed the Germans, which is why Stalin was so sure that Hitler would not be good enough until he finished with the Brita. And it was not at all necessary to beat the British at sea, rather, on the contrary, it was only necessary to prepare well, organize well (which the Germans can do) and conduct
        landing on the British Isles, creating a large and convenient bridgehead there (at the beginning), creating advanced airfields on it and developing the offensive! How long would England be able to resist the forces of German invasion on its islands? :) I believe that the maximum is 3 of the month, in the best case. And this was not worse, or even better than I was understood by Churchill, who after Dunkirk was almost in prostration. England did not have any decent land weapons or even small arms, in the required number, especially heavy (tanks, heavy artillery). They even lacked banal destroyers to escort their transports then.
        You are laughing at Shirokograd, but if the USSR had united with Germany then, in the 1940 / 41 years, which the West was most afraid of, then I would not even bet on the USA! You, Andrei, are well versed in battleships and shipbuilding, but the story doesn’t seem like your horse, I'm sorry!
        1. stoqn477
          stoqn477 26 June 2013 12: 25 New
          0
          I do not think Hitler could invade Britain. He has no air or sea superiority. And although Britain is an island, what would land if you do not control the situation at sea? The Wehrmacht may be an experience, but also on earth. Infantry until they reach the ground, passengers, if not on the ground there is no point. The German fleet suffered heavy losses in the Norwegian campaign, compared with the British fleet. Bismarck and several small ships cannot deal with the British battleships.
          1. Alex
            Alex 9 September 2013 20: 02 New
            +3
            stoqn477
            First, express your thoughts more coherently, otherwise it seems that you are not so much following a thought as reconstructing it on a telephone outside the coverage area.

            Now essentially.

            Second:
            I do not think Hitler could invade Britain. He has no air or sea superiority.

            Marine is a fact. But in the English Channel it is somehow not strong and necessary. Even if the British put their whole Grand Fleet into it, putting the battleships side to side, the easier the Luftwaffe would let him to the bottom.
            As for the air, it is worth reading the memories of the "Battle of England" from, for example, Marshal Downing. These are his words: "If the Germans continued their attacks for another two or three days, we would not have survived. But they suddenly switched to bombing London, which gave us an invaluable respite." I don’t think he exaggerated much.

            Thirdly:
            The German fleet suffered heavy losses in the Norwegian campaign, compared with the British fleet.

            Of the serious losses, as far as I remember, only the heavy cruiser "Blucher" and the light cruisers "Karlsruhe" and "Königsberg". Everything else is little things. The heavy cruisers Lutzow, Admiral Hipper, the battle cruisers Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the light cruiser Emdem quickly repaired their damage.

            Fourthly:
            Bismarck and several small ships

            Are these the heavy cruisers Admiral Graf von Spee and Admiral Scheer small ships? So that you live as they say in Odessa.

            Summary.
            Firstly, you are a complete ignoramus in history (no offense).

            Secondly - you are a worthless analyst (no offense).

            Thirdly, the complete success of the landing operation in Norway under conditions of complete freedom of maneuver by the English fleet just showed that the Wehrmacht is quite coping with tasks of this kind.

            Fourthly, the fleet, of course, suffers losses during landing operations, but these losses are justified and acceptable.

            Fifthly, with the support from the air and with the mass landing (the Germans have repeatedly proved the success of the airborne landing), the prospects for seizing the coast look quite bright.

            Sixth - Operation Sea Lion could well have been successful, but after the capture of England, Germany would have remained naked and barefoot, like a monastery mouse. A dangerous (I would say, deadly) situation for Hitler, but how tempting for Stalin. I will not discuss Rezun-Suvorov, but in Stalin's place after the suicidal conquest of England, I certainly would not have resisted explaining to the whole of Europe who is in charge here and who should be feared.

            True, all this is from the virtual history section. Or computer games. This is how anyone likes it more, and history, as you know, does not like the subjunctive mood.
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 25 June 2013 14: 22 New
    +1
    And they managed to fight and act in films! S. Segal in the role of super-cock at the Missouri.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 25 June 2013 16: 34 New
    +1
    By the way, there are shooting shots of such a monster from the air, as in the first shot of the article, only in the form of a film in dynamics. The sight is terrible when, after a full airborne volley, the whole engine of the battleship onboard (!!!) is thrown away from recoil! Tell me, who knows where such frames can look?
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 25 June 2013 16: 49 New
    -2
    IMHO: the weapons of the modern battleship should not be guns, but missiles.
  • MAG
    MAG 25 June 2013 18: 48 New
    +1
    When I was 13 years old I started in a ship-building precisely with Iowa and since then he has been my favorite))) then I made a torpedo boat but the scale is not the same)))
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 June 2013 21: 20 New
    +1
    For example, in the 2nd MV, aircraft carriers in the Pacific broke out in prims, displacing battleships, the apparent majesty and power of these giants with huge gun turrets is fascinating! Somehow they look much more menacing. Apparently, this is my string of the soul of the shipbuilder playing :))
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 25 June 2013 23: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: xomaNN
      That's even in the 2-th MV aircraft carriers in the Pacific beat out in primsdisplacing battleships

      Who was the primo in the war in the Pacific?

      distribution of losses of the Japanese indicating the cause of death
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 June 2013 23: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Who was the primo in the war in the Pacific?

        Aircraft carriers :))))))
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 June 2013 00: 27 New
          +3
          Nda?)))))
          Something is not feeling

          Some stupid mines and outdated NKs called about the same. And if you add the coast-based air force - as the contribution of AB is quite small against the general background. It looks like the imperial fleet was exterminated by other means
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 06: 56 New
            +1
            Okay, we won’t start over - we both know that apart from gigabytes of written text, nothing will be born and everyone will remain with their own opinion :)))
  • mithridate
    mithridate 26 June 2013 00: 09 New
    +2
    battleships - powerful and majestic ships
  • old man54
    old man54 26 June 2013 11: 51 New
    +2
    The article is interesting, "+"! I was always impressed by the photo and video of a full salvo of the main battery of these liquors, especially the spherical funnel in the sea near the side, caused by the pressure drop after the shot! A terrible sight! :)
    Why did the author of the article not mention the appearance of the battleship Iowa in the Baltic Sea in the 90s? It caused a serious commotion among the command of the KDBF and its rank-and-file officers. And the strangest thing is that the naval commanders overslept the appearance of the licor in the Baltic Sea, but found it already walking on the traverse of Poland. Then even a ditty was born on the Baltic Fleet: "Life was already x ... yova, and then" Iowa "came!" :)) lol
    At this time, the restrictions of the London Maritime Conference of 1936 of the year ended due to Japan's refusal to sign the final document. In the process, the standard displacement increased from 35 to 45 thousand tons, and artillery received a caliber of 406 mm instead of 356 mm.

    The 1922 Treaty on the Limitation of Naval Arms did not impose restrictions on the main caliber of battleships within 356-mm, and its upper limit was set at 380-mm, here the author of the article did not modify it. Designing and Amrerovskiy "Washington" with the caliber of the main battery in 380-mm and the French "Reshelier" with the same caliber indirect docking! The choice of the main caliber 356 mm by the brites for the promising battleships before the 2nd MV was a consequence of their longed desire to push all other countries into restrictions in the caliber of battleships just for such a size, which was beneficial for them and no one else. But at the aforementioned conference in 1938 it was not possible to reach an agreement (since Japan had almost finished designing battleships of the Yamato class and sabotaged the agreement in every possible way). As a result, the small-shavens, who, without waiting for the results of the conference on the limitation of naval weapons, outwitted themselves, starting the construction of the King George V with 356-mm guns. Something like that.
    1. Bongo
      26 June 2013 15: 03 New
      +3
      Frankly speaking, I didn't hear anything about Iowa in the Baltic in the 90s. And it was unlikely that she could be there, after the explosion on the second tower in 1989, which was never restored, the ship was practically unusable. In 1990. he was placed in reserve.
      1. old man54
        old man54 26 June 2013 21: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        Frankly speaking, I didn't hear anything about Iowa in the Baltic in the 90s. And it was unlikely that she could be there, after the explosion on the second tower in 1989, which was never restored, the ship was practically unusable. In 1990. he was placed in reserve.

        I absolutely agree with you, dear Bongo! But you did not understand me, it seems. Actually, I always thought that, for example, after the 1980 year, when the 81th is already underway, the 90th years begin. Those. there is a countdown to 90, and it means correctly to say that all events occurring after 80 are 90. Those. it goes already 9 a dozen centuries, which ends with the 1990-m year. Here you are, when exactly 30 turned years old, after which you told your comrades that you already had ten 4, or what? :)

        It is strange that you have not heard this story, apparently this case is not advertised until now! I don’t remember exactly the year, I don’t want to call my relatives in Kaliningrad because of this, sorry. But somewhere after 1985 for sure. And of course before this catastrophe with its 2nd tower at 89! A relative told me this story personally, then he was a squadron commander of the IBA MA of the Baltic Fleet in Kaliningrad, Chkalovsk. They are because of her, "Iowa", and because of this panic at the top of the fleet for 8/10 hours, they sat in planes (Su-17) literally, in helmets, in readiness No. 1 on command to take off to attack Iowa. ... The battleship walked clearly along the line of our terrorists, in the daytime, brazenly and confidently, alone, without a canvas and cover! Taking into account the power of the main battery salvo of his guns, he could do some serious business if he wanted to. to the main warehouses of the fleet (various, including mine and torpedo ones) in Baltiysk, he perfectly reached! A relative flew at him alone, with the personal order of the fleet aviation commander, in order to take his photograph, he flew diagonally, because flying over a warship along the DP line (in length), even in peacetime, according to international rules, is considered a combat approach to a target and, in principle, could easily make a decision to shoot down. He said that it was not very pleasant to fly over him, for the first time he saw such a "fool". :)) He said that he saw (the height was a little more than 100 meters) that there was not a single person on the deck, even on the bridge, all the doors and hatches were battened down, which means that the ship was on full combat readiness. Here's a story.
  • woland05
    woland05 26 June 2013 21: 58 New
    0
    The ship is beautiful. Battleship is a battleship, what can I say ...
  • Old skeptic
    Old skeptic 2 July 2013 02: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Quote: Old Skeptic
    Remind you who were 70% of these so-called "revolutionaries"?

    Sailors of Kronstadt, workers of Petrograd, soldiers of the Petrograd garrison. Correct answer?


    The answer immediately shows "xy from xy". You may not even look at the flag.
  • Alex
    Alex 9 September 2013 21: 00 New
    +3
    Yeah, battleships are worthy heirs of armadillos. In those, one also feels, though archaic, but some kind of mystical power. Thanks to the author!
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 16 December 2016 12: 00 New
    0
    "On the territory of the sea", "on the territory of the bay" ... Not to write "in the water area" or simply "in the bay". And in general, the level of the article is below Wikipedia. The facts are mixed in a heap, it is not always clear to which ship of the series what belongs, for example, that Roosevelt went to Tehran on the "Iowa", and an explosion in the tower also happened on her.