Military Review

American cruisers during the Second World War

80



With cruising forces in the Pacific, this happened история - they were unfairly forgotten and buried under the dust of time. Who is now interested in the pogrom at Savo Island, artillery duels in the Java Sea and at Cape Esperance? After all, everyone is already convinced that naval battles in the Pacific Ocean are limited to the raid on Pearl Harbor and the battle of Midway Atoll.

In a real war in the Pacific, cruisers were one of the key active forces of the US Navy and the Imperial fleet Japan - this class accounted for a large proportion of sunk ships and vessels from both warring parties. The cruisers were provided with short-range air defense of squadrons and aircraft carrier formations, covered up convoys and performed sentinel missions at sea lanes. If necessary, they were used as armored "tow trucks", towing damaged ships from the combat zone. But the cruisers' main value was discovered in the second half of the war: six- and eight-inch guns did not stop for a minute, "spudding" the Japanese defensive perimeter on the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

During daylight and darkness, under any weather conditions, cruisers continued to pour lead rain on the head of the unfortunate enemy, locked on a tiny atoll in the middle of the Great Ocean, through any impenetrable wall of tropical rain and mist of fog in all weather conditions. Multi-day artillery preparation and assault fire support - it was in this role that the heavy and light cruisers of the US Navy shone most brightly - both in the Pacific Ocean and in European waters of the Old World. In contrast to the monstrous battleships, the number of American cruisers participating in the battles was approaching eight dozen (some of the Cleveland Yankees were riveting 27 units), and the absence of very large caliber artillery on board was compensated by the high rate of eight-inch guns and more “small” guns.

The cruisers had tremendous destructive power - the 203 mm 8 '/ 55 projectile projectile had a mass of 150 kilograms and left the barrel section at a rate exceeding two speeds of sound. The shooting rate of the 8 '/ 55 naval gun reached 4 shots / min. In total, the heavy cruiser "Baltimore" carried nine such artillery systems, stationed in three towers of the main caliber.

In addition to impressive offensive capabilities, the cruisers had good armor, excellent survivability and a very high speed to 33 knots (> 60 km / h).
High speed and security was appreciated by sailors. It is no coincidence that the admirals so often kept their flag on cruisers - spacious working rooms and an amazing array of electronic equipment made it possible to equip a full-fledged flagship command post on board the ship.

American cruisers during the Second World War

USS Indianapolis (CA-35)

At the end of the war, it was the Indianapolis cruiser who was entrusted with the honorable and responsible mission of delivering nuclear charges to the island air base Tinian.

Cruisers who took part in the Second World War are divided into two large categories: those built before and after the war (meaning the end of the 30 and later). As for the pre-war cruisers, a great number of designs united one important fact: most of the pre-war cruisers were victims of the Washington and London maritime agreements. As time has shown, all the countries that have signed the agreement, in one way or another, have committed forgery with a displacement of cruisers under construction, exceeding the set limit of 10 in thousand tons by 20 and more than%. Alas, they still didn’t get anything worthwhile - they couldn’t prevent World War, but they amassed a million tons of steel on the damaged ships.

Like all Washingtonians, American cruisers built 1920-x - the first half of 1930-s had a skewed ratio of combat characteristics: low security (wall thickness of the towers of the cruiser Pensacola hardly exceeded 60 mm) in exchange for firepower and solid range swimming In addition, the Pensacola and Notreampton projects were underutilized - the designers were so enthusiastic about “compressing” the ships that they could not effectively use the entire displacement reserve. It is no coincidence that in the fleet these masterpieces of shipbuilding received the eloquent name "tin".


Heavy cruiser "Wichita"


The American "Washington" second-generation cruisers - the "New Orleans" (built 7 units) and the "Wichita" (the only ship of its type) were much more balanced combat units, but also not without drawbacks. This time, the designers were able to maintain decent speed, reservations and weapons in exchange for such an intangible parameter as "survivability" (linear location of the GEM, more dense layout - the ship had high chances to die from a single torpedo).

The outbreak of world war overnight canceled all world treaties. Throwing off the shackles of all sorts of restrictions, shipbuilders in the shortest possible time presented the draft balanced warships. Instead of the former "tin cans", formidable fighting units appeared on the stocks — genuine masterpieces of shipbuilding. Armament, armor, speed, seaworthiness, cruising range, survivability - the engineers did not allow compromises in any of these factors.

The fighting qualities of these ships turned out to be so great that many of them continued to be used as part of the US Navy and other countries even three or four decades after the end of the war!

Frankly, in the format of the open sea battle "ship against ship", each of the cruisers below will be stronger than any of its modern descendants. An attempt to “pit” any rusty “Cleveland” or “Baltimore” with the missile cruiser “Ticonderoga” will be deplorable for a modern ship - having approached for a couple of tens of kilometers, the “Baltimore” will break the “Ticonderoga” like a heating pad. The possibility of using "Tikonderogoy" rocket weapons with a range of 100 and more kilometers, in this case does not solve anything - the old armored ships are less susceptible to such "primitive" means of destruction as warhead warheads "Harpoon" or "Exochet".

I suggest readers to get acquainted with the most enchanting models of the American shipbuilding of the war years. Moreover, there is something to see there ...

Light cruisers like "Brooklyn"

The number of units in the series - 9
Construction years - 1935-1939
Total Displacement 12 207 tons (design value)
Crew 868 people
Main power plant: 8 boilers, Parsons 4 turbines, 100 000 HP
Maximum stroke of a 32,5 node
Range 10 000 miles on 15 nodes.
Main armor belt - 140 mm, maximum armor thickness - 170 mm (walls of the towers of the Civil Code)

Armament:
- 15 x 152 mm guns Ledger;
- 8 x 127 mm universal guns;
- 20-30 anti-aircraft guns "Bofors" caliber 40 mm *;
- 20 anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon" caliber 20 mm *;
- 2 catapult, 4 seaplane.
* typical Brooklyn defense in 40-e




Close breath of World War forced to reconsider approaches to the design of ships. At the start of the 1933, the Yankees received alarming information about the laying in Japan of Mogami-type cruisers armed with 15 six-inch guns in five turrets. In reality, the Japanese made a major forgery: the standard displacement "Mogami" was 50% more declared - these were heavy cruisers, which, in the future, were planned to be equipped with ten 203 mm cannons (which happened at the start of the war).

But at the start of the 1930's, the Yankees did not know about the samurai’s cunning plans and, in order to keep up with the “likely enemy”, they rushed to design a light cruiser with five towers of the main caliber!
Despite the current limitations of the Washington Treaty and non-standard design conditions, the Brooklyn-class cruiser turned out to be pretty darn good. Impressive offensive potential, coupled with excellent reservations and good seaworthiness.

All nine built cruisers took an active part in the Second World War, and at the same time (it is time to be surprised!) None of them died in battles. "Brooklyn" fell under the bombing and torpedo attacks, artillery fire and attacks "kamikaze" - alas, every time the ships remained afloat and after repair returned to service. Off the coast of Italy, the German Fritz-X super-bomb hit the cruiser Savannah, however, this time, despite the enormous destruction and death of 197 sailors, the ship was able to dock off to the base in Malta.


"Phoenix" is posing against the backdrop of the burning Navy Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941



Cruiser "Phoenix" off the coast of the Philippines, 1944 year



Argentine cruiser "General Belgrano" (ex-Phoenix) with a bow torn off by the explosion, 2 May 1982



Salvage cruiser Savannah off the coast of Italy, 1943 year. The Fritz-X radio-controlled bomb hit the roof of the third tower of the Civil Code with an 1400-kg

But the most amazing adventures fell to the Phoenix cruiser - this joker cleverly slipped away from the Japanese strike in Pearl Harbor Bay, without receiving a scratch. But he couldn’t get away from fate - after 40 years he was sunk by a British submarine during the Falklands War.

Light cruisers like "Atlanta"

The number of units in the series - 8
Construction years - 1940-1945
Total Displacement 7 400 tons
Crew 673 rights
Main power plant: 4 boiler, 4 steam turbines, 75 000 HP
Maximum stroke of a 33 node
Range 8 500 miles on 15 nodes
The main armor belt 89 mm.

Armament:
- 16 x 127 mm universal guns;
- 16 automatic anti-aircraft guns caliber 27 mm (the so-called "Chicago piano");
on the last ships of the series, they were replaced by 8 Bofors automata;
- up to 16 anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon" caliber 20 mm;
- 8 torpedo tubes caliber 533 mm;
- By the end of the war, a sonar and a set of depth charges appeared on ships.




One of the most beautiful cruisers of World War II. Specialized anti-aircraft ships capable of destroying an 10 560 kg of red-hot steel to the enemy in a minute - the volley of a small cruiser was amazing.
Alas, in practice it turned out that the US Navy did not suffer from a shortage of 127 mm universal anti-aircraft guns (hundreds of destroyers armed themselves with similar weapons), but sometimes medium-caliber artillery was not enough. In addition to the weakness of weapons, "Atlanta" suffered from low security - affected by the small size and too "thin" booking.

As a result, two out of eight ships died in battles: the head Atlanta died from enemy torpedoes and artillery fire in a gunfight at Guadalcanal (November 1942). Another one - “Juno” died the same day: a Japanese submarine finished off the damaged ship.





Cleveland Light Cruisers

The number of units in the series - 27. Another 3 completed by the improved project "Fargo", 9 - as easy
Independence aircraft carriers. The remaining dozen of the unfinished hulls were scrapped in 1945, many of the cruisers were launched at that time and were completed afloat (the planned number of project ships is 52 units)

Construction years - 1940-1945
Total Displacement 14 130 tons (draft)
Crew 1255 people
Main power plant: 4 boiler, 4 steam turbines, 100 000 HP
Maximum stroke of a 32,5 node
Range 11 000 miles on 15 nodes
The main armor belt 127 mm. Maximum armor thickness - 152 mm (frontal part of the towers GK)

Armament:
- 12 x 152 mm guns of the main caliber;
- 12 x 127 mm universal guns;
- Up to 28 Bofors anti-aircraft guns;
- up to 20 anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon";
- 2 catapult, 4 seaplane.




The first truly full-fledged cruiser of the US Navy. Powerful, balanced. With excellent security and offensive capabilities. Do not pay attention to the prefix "easy." Cleveland is as light as a cast-iron locomotive. In the countries of the Old World, such ships without exaggeration are classified as "heavy cruisers". Behind the dry figures “gun caliber / armor thickness” are hiding not less interesting things: the good location of anti-aircraft artillery, the relative spaciousness of the interior, the triple bottom in the area of ​​engine rooms ...

But Cleveland had its own “Achilles heel” - overload and, as a result, stability problems. The situation was so serious that on the last ships of the series they began to remove the conning tower, catapult and rangefinders from the towers No. XXUMX and No. XXUMX. Obviously, the problem of low stability was the reason for the short life of the Clevelands - almost all of them left the ranks of the US Navy before the start of the Korean War. Only three cruisers - “Galveston”, “Oklahoma City” and “Little Rock” (in the title illustration of the article) underwent an extensive modernization and continued to serve as cruisers carrying guided missile weapons (Talos). Had time to take part in the war in Vietnam.

The Cleveland project went down in history as the most numerous series of cruisers. However, despite their high fighting qualities and a large number of built ships, the Cleveland arrived too late to see the real “smoke of sea battles”; among the trophies of these cruisers there are only Japanese destroyers (it is worth noting that the Yankees never suffered from a lack of equipment - in the first phase of the war, cruisers of pre-war construction fought actively, of which the Americans had entire 40 units)

Most of the time, "Cleveland" were engaged in firing on coastal targets - Mariana Islands, Saipan, Mindanao, Tinian, Guam, Mindoro, Lingen, Palawan, Formosa, Kwajalein, Palau, Bonin, Iwo Jima ... It is difficult to overestimate the contribution of these cruisers to the defeat of the Japanese defensive perimeter .




Launch of anti-aircraft missiles from the Little Rock Cruiser

During the fighting, none of the ships went to the bottom, however, serious losses could not be avoided: the cruiser “Houston” suffered greatly - having received two torpedoes on board, he took 6000 tons of water and barely reached the forward base on the Uliti Atoll. But it was especially hard for “Birmingham” - the cruiser helped to extinguish fires on board the damaged aircraft carrier “Princeton”, when the ammunition charge was detonating on the aircraft carrier. "Birmingham" was nearly knocked over by a blast wave, 229 people died on the cruiser, more than 400 sailors were injured.

Heavy cruisers like "Baltimore"

The number of units in the series - 14
Construction years - 1940-1945
Total Displacement 17 000 tons
Crew 1700 people
GEM - four-shaft: 4 boiler, 4 steam turbines, 120 000 HP
Maximum stroke of a 33 node
Range 10 000 miles on 15 nodes
The main armor belt is 150 mm. Maximum armor thickness - 203 mm (towers GK)

Armament:
- 9 x 203 mm guns of the main caliber;
- 12 x 127 mm universal guns;
- Up to 48 Bofors anti-aircraft guns;
- up to 24 anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon";
- 2 catapult, 4 seaplane.




“Baltimore” is not a ketchup with slices of ripe vegetables, this thing is much more important. The apotheosis of American shipbuilding in the class of "cruiser". All bans and restrictions are reset. The design introduced the latest achievements of the American military-industrial complex military years. Radar, monstrous guns, heavy armor. Super-hero with a maximum of merits and a minimum of flaws.

Like the lighter cruisers of the “Cleveland” type, the Baltimors arrived only at the head of the Pacific - the first four cruisers were put into operation in 1943, one more - 1944, the other nine - in 1945. As a result, most of the Baltimore damage was caused by storms, typhoons and crew navigation errors. Nevertheless, they made a definite contribution to the victory - the heavy cruisers literally “hollowed out” the atolls Marcus and Wake, supported the landing forces on countless islets and atolls of the Pacific Ocean, participated in raids to the Chinese coast and attacking Japan.






Missile and artillery cruiser "Boston". Launch of Terrier rocket launcher, 1956 year
The war ended, and the Baltimors did not think of going to rest - heavy naval artillery soon became useful in Korea and Vietnam. A number of cruisers of this type became the first carriers of anti-aircraft missiles in the world - by 1955, the Boston and Canberra had received the TERIER air defense system. Three more ships underwent a global modernization project "Albany" with the complete dismantling of superstructures and artillery and the subsequent conversion into missile cruisers.


A total of 4 days after Indianapolis delivered the atomic bombs to Fr. Tinian, the cruiser was sunk by a Japanese submarine I-58. Of the 1200 man crew, only 316 was saved. The catastrophe in the ocean has become the largest in the number of victims in the history of the US Navy
Author:
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas 26 June 2013 09: 01 New
    +5
    Bravo Oleg! Wonderful article!
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 26 June 2013 09: 56 New
      +6
      Quote: Nayhas
      Bravo Oleg! Wonderful article!


      Nice to read. The "hand" is light.
      1. Santa Fe
        26 June 2013 12: 30 New
        +3
        Vadim, let's thank the Russian alphabet wink
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 15 New
      +2
      Urrra !!!
      Recipe found wink
      Not a word about Satan (aircraft carriers wink wink ) - and the output is a great article wink
      Keep it up!
      Maybe we will see another summary of other books by Apalkov wink It would be great
  2. avt
    avt 26 June 2013 09: 51 New
    +4
    In ,, Savannah "not just ,, Fritz" hit the tower, pierced through, went through the ammunition cellar and having broken through the bottom, exploding flooded the cellar with water! The men were lucky, and the cellar would detonate if Fritz detonated a fraction of a second earlier!? Heg knows, I don’t know the guys. The Yankees then frightened the Worcesters with a 152mm / 47 universal weapon against high-flying aircraft. from ,, Cleveland "they also made aircraft carriers. laughing Well, the only cooler Baltimore is theirs, De Moin
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 26 June 2013 21: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: avt
      Well, the only cooler Baltimore is theirs, De Moin

      There were times !!!!!

      The “mastadons” were built by the capitalists.
      Just 4 days after Indianapolis delivered atomic bombs to Fr. Tinian, a cruiser was sunk by a Japanese submarine I-58. Of the 1200 crew, only 316 were saved. The disaster in the ocean was the largest in terms of the number of victims in the history of the US Navy
      It is a pity that she did not intercept him when he was carrying his load.
  3. Pamir210
    Pamir210 26 June 2013 10: 25 New
    +3
    It should be clarified that the Atlantas were built not as air defense cruisers, but as leaders of destroyers.
    But, a successful set of weapons allowed calmly and without changes to solve new problems.
  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 10: 39 New
    +7
    The article is good, but only too enthusiastic about the American cruisers. Of course, in the end, the Americans created the best heavy cruisers in the world (Baltimore) and Cleveland was extremely successful, but ... Pensacola, Portland and even New Orleans - in general, do not surpass the Japanese heavy cruisers (and if you think about it - even inferior). The long trunks were a big trump card for the Japanese TKR - the American cruisers did not carry torpedoes. Prior to Portland, inclusive, the US cruisers were inferior to the Japanese in armor thicknesses, and New Orleans and Wichita in inferior armored sides. In general, it’s not bad for its time, rather strong ships, but nothing more. "Brooklyn" - funny "deceived ships" - in general, of course, a good cruiser, but the Japanese built their Mogami not light but heavy cruisers and quickly changed their 152-mm guns to 203 mm ...
    Well, and practice, of course - US cruisers were raided from the Japanese TKR almost every time they came across them. I don’t blame the performance characteristics of the American cruisers, but you won’t throw words out of the song.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 June 2013 12: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      japanese heavy cruisers

      Unique cars)))) One “Tone” worth
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Well, and practice, of course - US cruisers were raided from the Japanese TKR almost every time they came across them.

      Crew training. As a result, in the first year of the war, the japas arranged a series of non-acidic tsushim allies

      Guadalcanal night duel
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 13: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        One "Tone" worth

        Yes :))) “Tone” is a thing in itself :)) And out of itself :)))) Although, of course, there are four towers in the nose ... A kind of aesthetics, a kind. laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Crew training.

        I do not argue, in principle, American cruisers were quite competitive, it was possible to fight on them. It's just that they ... how to say this ... strong middles like that. The Italian Zaras were distinguished by very powerful and rational reservations, the French Algeri also had good defense and uberPTZ, the Japanese ... well, everything is clear with them, the Germans came up with their pocket battleship with 280-mm, but the American a New Orleans cruiser is nothing different. Just good ships, workhorses.
        Ehh, I’ll try once again to insert a picture ... no, I didn’t insert it again
        1. Kars
          Kars 26 June 2013 13: 19 New
          +4
          ___________Tonya
          dear bastard, I won’t pull.
          1. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 26 June 2013 16: 47 New
            +4
            Kars hi drinks

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Ehh, I’ll try once again to insert a picture ... no, I didn’t insert it again
            1. Karlsonn
              Karlsonn 26 June 2013 16: 51 New
              +4
              "Tone." This cruiser (and the Tikuma of the same type) was designed specifically to accompany aircraft carrier formations. Therefore, the main-caliber artillery towers are concentrated in the bow of the ship, and the stern was intended for reconnaissance seaplanes (up to 8 pieces).
              1. Santa Fe
                26 June 2013 17: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Karlsonn
                Designed specifically to accompany aircraft carrier formations. Therefore, the main-caliber artillery towers are concentrated in the bow of the ship, and the stern was intended for reconnaissance seaplanes (up to 8 pieces).

                Why carrier aircraft seaplanes?
                There are already enough normal fighters / bombers / scouts
                1. Karlsonn
                  Karlsonn 26 June 2013 17: 13 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Why carrier aircraft seaplanes?


                  Well, this is more a question for the Japanese than for me, since only they were actively building hydro-aircraft carriers.


                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  There are already enough normal fighters / bombers / scouts


                  I think it’s corny cheaper.
                2. avt
                  avt 26 June 2013 17: 25 New
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Why carrier aircraft seaplanes?
                  There are already enough normal fighters / bombers / scouts


                  The Japanese aerial reconnaissance and target designation of aircraft carrier formations, unlike amers, carried seaplanes of escort ships, as a rule they were hydroplanes of cruisers, such tactics of using aviation were adopted. Carriers, at least in the initial period, carried only attack aircraft and fighters.
                  1. Karlsonn
                    Karlsonn 26 June 2013 17: 38 New
                    +1
                    Quote: avt
                    In Japan, aerial reconnaissance and target designation of aircraft carrier formations, unlike amers, were carried out by seaplane escort ships
                    good

                    I think it’s worth counting anti-submarine support for aircraft carrier connections, but all the "pluses" of seaplanes are taxed by one "minus" - to bring them aboard, the same hemorrhoids, which is also possible only in certain weather conditions.
                    1. avt
                      avt 26 June 2013 18: 08 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Karlsonn
                      I think the anti-submarine support of carrier formations should also be counted here.

                      Here is for me the provision of PLO that amers have, that the Japanese admit a mystery. I have not read a single monograph on this subject request , I know only one airplane specialized in Japanese anti-aircraft defense, but that is also coast-based. I suppose you are right, I repeat, it was the PLO of aircraft carrier formations that were somehow poorly lit, or I was not looking very hard. request
                3. Karlsonn
                  Karlsonn 26 June 2013 20: 20 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Why carrier aircraft seaplanes?
                  There are already enough normal fighters / bombers / scouts


                  comrade, I slowed down something repeat

                  But the Americans also had seaplanes in service at that time, but their presence with the Amers does not bother you - how so? request
                  ... Baltimore-class heavy cruisers

                  The number of units in the series - 14
                  Construction years - 1940-1945
                  Total Displacement 17 000 tons
                  Crew 1700 people
                  GEM - four-shaft: 4 boiler, 4 steam turbines, 120 000 HP
                  Maximum stroke of a 33 node
                  Range 10 000 miles on 15 nodes
                  The main armor belt is 150 mm. Maximum armor thickness - 203 mm (towers GK)

                  Armament:
                  - 9 x 203 mm guns of the main caliber;
                  - 12 x 127 mm universal guns;
                  - Up to 48 Bofors anti-aircraft guns;
                  - up to 24 anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon";
                  - 2 catapults, 4 seaplanes ...
                  1. avt
                    avt 26 June 2013 20: 38 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Karlsonn
                    and the Americans also had seaplanes in service at that time

                    Quote: Karlsonn
                    2 catapults, 4 seaplanes ...

                    Scouts are spotters of fire .SOC, SO3C, SC.The range is almost half that of the Japanese counterparts, precisely because the Japanese went to the distant in the interests of the E13A aircraft carrier groups, the Japanese went to Pearl Street -2080 against 1270 for almost the same age American SOC. The SC single seems to have crept in range to the Japs, but already closer to the end of the war.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 20: 57 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Karlsonn
                    comrade, I slowed down something

                    You did not brake anything. Seaplane reconnaissance has one global advantage over deck. When you see a regular recon deck - does that mean? Well, of course - somewhere near an aircraft carrier. But if you see a hydra ...
                    1. Karlsonn
                      Karlsonn 26 June 2013 21: 00 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You did not brake anything. Seaplane reconnaissance has one global advantage over deck. When you see a regular recon deck - does that mean? Well, of course - somewhere near an aircraft carrier. But if you see a hydra ...


                      I agree.


                      Quote: Karlsonn
                      that's just all the "pluses" of seaplanes taxis one minus - to lift them on board, the same hemorrhoids, which is also possible only in certain weather conditions.
                    2. Santa Fe
                      26 June 2013 21: 15 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      When you see a regular recon deck - does that mean? Well, of course - somewhere near an aircraft carrier.

                      Or airbase

                      However, this is not important for artillery battles.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But if you see a hydra ...

                      So he's a corpse
                      1. Karlsonn
                        Karlsonn 26 June 2013 22: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So he's a corpse
                        good

                        although not a fact

                        the picture is not loading crying , and such an option could be:

                        The photo shows the head submarine of the I-400 series the day after the delivery to the Americans.
                        Japanese submarines of the I-400 series were the largest submarines before the advent of nuclear submarines. The start of their design was laid by Admiral Yamamoto, who needed an underwater aircraft carrier capable of carrying seaplanes armed with an 800-kg bomb or aircraft torpedo. Such an aircraft was the Aichi M6A "Seiran" (Mountain Haze), which, incidentally, did not receive nicknames from the Allies, among the few later Japanese cars. Of the 18 boats planned for construction, only 3 were completed, but they did not take part in the hostilities.

                        picture here - http://navycollection.narod.ru/library/Jap_submarines/foto_html/image45.htm
            2. Kars
              Kars 26 June 2013 17: 59 New
              +2
              Yes, one and a half rubles, in principle, you can take it if you sold it in assembled form.
              1. Karlsonn
                Karlsonn 26 June 2013 18: 32 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                Yes, one and a half rubles, in principle, you can take it if you sold it in assembled form.


                Kars in a whisper

                take this one right away

                wink
                1. Kars
                  Kars 26 June 2013 18: 35 New
                  +2
                  Do not get lost in the hallway
                  1. Karlsonn
                    Karlsonn 26 June 2013 20: 17 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Do not get lost in the hallway


                    and children will not immediately break laughing
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 20 New
            0
            After all, a handsome man. There were few who were so handsome
        2. Santa Fe
          26 June 2013 14: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The long trunks were a big trump card for the Japanese TKR - the American cruisers did not carry torpedoes.

          Controversial decision.
          The presence on board the "Long Lance" was the cause of the rapid death of several Japanese cruisers - "Mikuma", "Tekai" ...

          (in part - the location of the TA is unsuccessful; Which clever man came up with the idea that torpedoes (and even oxygen ones!) do not require armor protection)?

          Mikumu burst with its own torpedoes))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 June 2013 15: 04 New
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Controversial decision.

            Here everything rests on the tactics of application. The Japanese relied on a night battle, and it was very useful for them - you yourself know how many night art fights with the same guadalcanal. We fought at night, so as not to substitute for aviation. And at night, long lance, I will report to you, this is an argument :))))
            1. Pamir210
              Pamir210 26 June 2013 19: 17 New
              +1
              Until the widespread introduction of radars rolled.
              Over time, it ceased.
          2. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 26 June 2013 16: 55 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The presence on board of the "Long Lance" was the cause of the rapid death of several Japanese cruisers - "Mikuma"


            Mikuma.
          3. cdrt
            cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 23 New
            +1
            Hmm ...
            Well, after all, the Japanese understood that in a daytime battle the US Navy or WB could not be replaced by training.
            From there the doctrine of night battles (from the 20s). And for them without radar, the best weapon is torpedoes. And after all, they were no equal here.

            The Americans, however, were sharpened in many ways as an escort of battleships or aircraft carriers. Heavy artillery ships, which torpedo weapons are generally unnecessary. Features after the advent of centimeter radars
          4. avt
            avt 26 June 2013 17: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Controversial decision.

            But it helped them very well in the initial period of the war when the Czechoslovakia all in the Philippines with a weak air opposition from the Amers. Amer, on the contrary, didn’t put torpedo tubes on cruisers, only artillery. But the lack of torpedoes on board, with competent fights from the Japanese, did not interfere with their cruisers
        3. cdrt
          cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 19 New
          0
          So it’s just the average people who are needed as the main ships of the fleet.
          Without frills, without showing off - just to do work in war.
          In this sense, the best, especially towards the end of the war.
          1. Pamir210
            Pamir210 26 June 2013 19: 19 New
            0
            These can be called "Cleveland"
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 17 New
        +1
        Well, yes.
        The battle near the island of Savo was called the second Pearl Harbor.
        Anyway - one gets the impression that only the Japanese used TKr really well
        1. avt
          avt 26 June 2013 17: 37 New
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          Anyway - one gets the impression that only the Japanese used TKr really well

          Yes, but exactly until the moment when the amers aircraftmen did not close the sky and did not receive technical superiority due to radars, especially at night.
    2. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 27 June 2013 00: 21 New
      +2
      Maybe not the case, but rather indicative - the “Pittsburgh” with its nose torn off 1945.
  5. bpvo58
    bpvo58 26 June 2013 12: 04 New
    0
    ... The possibility of using Ticonderoga missiles with a firing range of 100 or more kilometers in this case does not solve anything - old armored ships are unresponsive to such "primitive" means of destruction as warheads of the Harpoon or Exocet missiles.
    The author understands what he writes?
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 26 June 2013 15: 50 New
      +1
      Read Maxim Kalashnikov.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 24 New
        0
        This is not the one who raved about the atomic battleship for the Russian Navy? Like in the worst case, let's make an atomic firewall?
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 27 June 2013 11: 53 New
          +1
          That one. He has continuous annealing on any subject.
  6. Kars
    Kars 26 June 2013 12: 09 New
    +4
    Shelling of Vietnam 1966
  7. svp67
    svp67 26 June 2013 12: 12 New
    +2
    It’s a pity the story is not so extensive ... And the article is interesting.
  8. Santa Fe
    26 June 2013 12: 18 New
    +2
    Type "Albany"

    Who recognizes in this freak the most beautiful Baltimore?
  9. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 26 June 2013 12: 20 New
    +1
    Thank you for the article. I also agree with Andrei, it was possible for any of the Japanese to be compared, but this is a matter of the artist’s taste.
    Photo "Argentine cruiser" General Belgrano "(ex-Phoenix) with a bow torn off by the explosion, May 2, 1982" I also think is very successful.
    What about submarine analysis of WWII?
    1. Santa Fe
      26 June 2013 12: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      What about submarine analysis of WWII?

      dizelyuhi killed all who met him on the way
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 June 2013 13: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        dizelyuhi killed all who met him on the way

        I would like in more detail and deployed, for the whole article. And in the second place are the aircraft carriers, judging by the picture?
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 June 2013 14: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        diesels killed everyone

        I did not consider the plate well, on the plate the aircraft carriers sank more warships and the diesels of the merchant fleet, so your statement does not correspond to the plate a little.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 27 New
          +3
          Do not touch aircraft carriers - author’s sore spot wink Not a word about them
        2. Santa Fe
          26 June 2013 19: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          on the plate, aircraft carriers sank more warships

          there practically nose-to-nose
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          and dieselyuhi merchant fleet

          trade - poorly said
          DEPLs drowned transports with raw materials, equipment and equipment from which Japan and garrisons on the distant islands critically depended.

          How, for example, to prove that the sinking of the cruiser is more useful than the sinking of transport with a battalion of Japanese marines (or three oil tankers)?
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 26 June 2013 17: 26 New
        0
        Something in European waters was not observed wink and there were more diesels there than in all other fleets combined it was built.
        Most likely it’s true - American diesels killed everyone who met wink
        1. Santa Fe
          26 June 2013 19: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          Something like this was not observed in European waters, and there were more diesels there than in all other fleets put together.

          In European waters, the situation was even worse - on account of German submariners 13 million tons of tonnage - three times more than that of American
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 26 June 2013 13: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      I also agree with Andrei, it was possible for any of the Japanese to be compared, but this is a matter of the artist’s taste.

      The theme of cruisers is so vast that it simply won’t fit into a short article, even the usual comparison of the opposing sides will require a lot of text, tables, diagrams, because and there are many nuances and projects too.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 June 2013 14: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        The theme of cruisers is so vast.

        One could cite the example in a light and heavy class, but the article is still interesting and well written, I suspect that Oleg writes poetry and a little bit, but I can’t assert.
  10. pa_nik
    pa_nik 26 June 2013 14: 52 New
    +1
    At the end of the article, I liked the monument .. repeat Everything is interestingly stated. Thank! + hi
  11. Gato
    Gato 26 June 2013 16: 33 New
    0
    Frankly, in the format of an open naval battle "ship against ship", each of the cruisers presented below will be stronger than any of its modern descendants. An attempt to “bleed” some rusty “Cleveland” or “Baltimore” with the Ticonderoga missile cruiser will turn out to be deplorable for a modern ship - approaching a couple of tens of kilometers, “Baltimore” will tear the “Ticonderoga” like a heating pad. The possibility of using Ticonderoga missiles with a firing range of 100 or more than kilometers does not solve anything in this case - old armored ships are not very susceptible to such "primitive" means of destruction as warheads of the Harpoon or Exocet missiles.


    And stupid amers built “Tiko” and “Burke” instead of “Baltimore”?
    I liked the article, but on this paragraph the author entered it in an adult way.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 June 2013 16: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Gato
      And stupid amers built “Tiko” and “Burke” instead of “Baltimore”?

      The tasks and structure of the fleet have changed
      Tiko and Burke are made for anything, but not for naval combat with their own kind.

      Quote: Gato
      And stupid amers built “Tiko” and “Burke” instead of “Baltimore”?

      Yes, that seemed like a mistake. It was necessary to create something between the armless Tika and Baltimore (“Albany”, for example)
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 26 June 2013 17: 44 New
        +1
        the ancient, subsonic KSSh broke through a similar cruiser, and Stalingrad broke through. battleships pierced through through the bombs .. in short, the armor would have lost anyway sooner or later.
        and then, they would have to fight with Soviet missiles, and not with Harpoons.
        ps review ex. apart from this retreat of course
        1. Santa Fe
          26 June 2013 19: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          ancient, subsonic KSSh pierced through a similar cruiser

          Are you talking about QC?
          1. main belt - 75 mm
          2. Did the KSSh get into the armored belt? - There is no mention of this. But it happens that there were marks from stabilizers on the internal bulkheads - clear evidence that the blow fell outside the armor
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Yes, and “Stalingrad” broke.

          I heard something about testing the compartment, but I don’t remember exactly
          Do not tell?
          Quote: Tlauicol
          aerial bombs pierced through battleships

          Are you talking about Fritz X?
          None of the modern bombs have such a trajectory
          And can not mean the appearance of air defense systems
          Quote: Tlauicol
          and then, they would have to fight with Soviet missiles, and not with Harpoons.

          Does it change anything?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 26 June 2013 19: 50 New
            0
            not about the spacecraft, but about Nakhimov (100-130 mm through both sides + longitudinal bulkheads and another liver). 230 mm board at the Stalingrad compartment. And the ancient missiles were replaced by supersonic ones with kinetic energy 30 times more than Harpoon’s - much changes.
            but about bombs - this is me to the fact that subsonic ammunition pierced the battleship of Rum (for example) through
            1. Kars
              Kars 26 June 2013 19: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              not about the spacecraft, but about Nakhimov (100-130 mm through both sides + longitudinal bulkheads and another liver). at the Stalingrad compartment 230 mm side

              Well, in this situation, it is customary to accept the Pruffs from where, where it is written.
            2. Santa Fe
              26 June 2013 19: 59 New
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              and about Nakhimov (100-130 mm through both sides + longitudinal bulkheads and another liver). at the compartment of Stalingrad 230 mm side

              This is at odds with the logic.
              if the subsonic anti-ship missile easily penetrates hundreds of mm of armor - then why did the armor save the WWII naval artillery (hundreds of kg of solid metal, speed 2M)
              Quote: Tlauicol
              came supersonic with kinetic energy times in 30 more than that of Harpoon - this changes a lot.

              The projectile speed will be more
              Quote: Tlauicol
              but about bombs - this is me to the fact that subsonic ammunition pierced the battleship of Rum (for example) through

              Фritz-X niskol not similar to КСЩ
              There is a continuous array of high-strength steel weighing one ton
              1. GHG
                GHG 27 June 2013 06: 08 New
                +1
                The projectile has a maximum projectile velocity at the cut of the barrel, and it even appears in the characteristics of the gun. In reality, everything is different, shooting in hostilities is usually carried out starting from the maximum range of reach of the weapon. And these are very long distances, the projectile loses its speed. and the angle of the projectile’s encounter with the armor, whether it hit the belt or the armored deck. But for RCC, this is not so obvious.
                At the expense of Fritz-X
                By the end of 1941, the Japanese did not have heavy armor-piercing bombs of a special design. Therefore, before the war, the tail units with stabilizers were attached to the 355-mm and 410-mm armor-piercing shells of naval artillery in an emergency order.

                Weight 410 mm armor-piercing projectile was 1020 kg. It contained 219 kg of explosive.

                Weight 355 mm armor-piercing projectile was 674 kg. It contained 142 kg of explosive.

                The length of both shells was 3,4-3,5 klb. By the way, in the West until 1945 it was believed that the caliber of Japanese guns was not 410 mm, but 406 mm (16 inches), hence the mythical information about Japanese armor-piercing bombs with a case diameter of 406 mm.

                Armor-piercing bombs, which had 355 mm shells as a warhead, weighed about 800 kg, they were called 800-kg armor-piercing bombs.

                In the first wave of Japanese aircraft attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, there were 49 Type 97 bombers carrying one 800 kg armor-piercing bomb. The action of the bombs was quite effective. The battleship Tennessee received 2 hits of 800 kg of bombs. One hit the barrel of the second main-caliber tower, and the other hit the third main-caliber tower, pierced the 127-mm horizontal armor and exploded in the turret.

                An 800-kg bomb broke through the deck of the battleship Arizona and exploded in a bow artillery cellar. As a result, the entire bow of the ship was destroyed. Although 7 more bombs hit the Arizona, presumably 250 kg, it was the 800 kg bomb that destroyed the ship. Out of 1511 members of its crew, 1103 people died.

                On the Maryland battleship, an 800-kg bomb broke through several armored decks on the forecastle and exploded in the hold below the waterline. ”
                CONCLUSION: The ships were designed to fight their "brothers" with the same battleships armed with barrel artillery.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 27 June 2013 11: 39 New
                  +1
                  Quote: GES
                  The projectile has the maximum velocity of the projectile at the cut of the barrel, it even appears in the characteristics of the gun.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    27 June 2013 12: 45 New
                    +1
                    14 '

                    m = 635 kg (Exoset)
                    v = 1,8M (exoset energy is 4 times less)
                    armor penetration 32 cm

                    Come on odds. fill))) I heard that it is within 2-3%

                    Exoset section. Warhead is highlighted in red
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 28 June 2013 13: 23 New
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      14 '


                      13.5

                      Brand APC Ia - 1400 kg. (635,0 kg)
                      APC Mark IIIa (Greenboy) - 1410 kg. (639,6 kg)
                      CPC - 1400 kg. (635,0 kg)
                      HE - 1400 kg. (635,0 kg)
                      Brand APC Ia - 44,5 kg. (20,2 kg)
                      APC Mark IIIa - 33 kg. (15,0 kg)
                      CPC - 117,5 kg. (53,3 kg)
                      HE - 176,5 kg. (80,1 kg)


                      pounds translated incorrectly.

                      And then mechanical strength as something to calculate, and a specialized structure.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        28 June 2013 13: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        13.5

                        What a strange caliber))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Brand APC Ia - 1400 kg. (635,0 kg)
                        APC Mark IIIa (Greenboy) - 1410 kg. (639,6 kg)

                        armor-piercing 640 kg: 15 kg - less than 3%
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 28 June 2013 14: 59 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What a strange caliber))

                        there are many, especially among the British.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        armor-piercing 640 kg: 15 kg - less than 3%

                        and how else dobits of good armor-piercing --- here would add explosive density, but it is clear until fate does not exceed 2 grams per cubic centimeter.
              2. Santa Fe
                27 June 2013 12: 08 New
                0
                Quote: GES
                shooting in hostilities is usually carried out starting from the maximum range of reach of the weapon. And these are very long distances, the shell loses its speed

                This point has been taken into account.
                The belt was designed to withstand shells of 381-mm caliber at distances from 12 300 for cellars and from 14 300 meters for a power plant. Its thickness ranged from 381 mm in the cellar area to 356 mm in the engine room area. (Description of "King George V")

                The initial projectile speed of the British 15 "/ 42 Mark I reached 750 m / s (2,5М), the mass of the projectile is almost 900 kg
                Quote: GES
                The battleship Tennessee received 2 hit 800-kg bombs. One hit the barrel of the second main-caliber tower, and the other hit the third main-caliber tower, pierced the 127-mm horizontal armor and exploded in the turret.

                myth
                http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/tennesy3.htm
                Quote: GES
                800-kg bomb pierced the deck of the battleship Arizona

                solid-state 3000 kg disc discarded from 800 meters
                Is it like modern RCC?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. GHG
                  GHG 28 June 2013 03: 44 New
                  0
                  On the issue of getting into the third tower of Tennessee Group of Companies.
                  In this photo, the armor is not visible at all, maybe the inscriptions on the photo are curves? It looks more like a deck ... although you can see coaming from above ... most likely in the turret compartment, i.e. the bomb broke through the tower. But apparently it didn’t detonate. According to the official version, it sounds strange (incomplete detonation
                  explosive).
          2. Kars
            Kars 26 June 2013 20: 00 New
            +1
            In 1956 they cut it?
  • Bosk
    Bosk 26 June 2013 20: 07 New
    0
    And I like the Japanese heavy cruisers more ..., so we are waiting for an article on Japanese heavy bands!, And for this article a well-deserved PLUS!
  • Andy
    Andy 26 June 2013 23: 38 New
    +1
    "Attempting to bleed some rusty Cleveland or Baltimore with the Ticonderoga missile cruiser will be disastrous for a modern ship - approaching a couple of tens of kilometers, Baltimore will tear the Ticonderoga like a heating pad."

    It’s strange that our fighter with aircraft carriers didn’t offer to go boarding at all. maybe in the next article?
  • mithridate
    mithridate 26 June 2013 23: 38 New
    0
    informative article
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 27 June 2013 13: 45 New
    0
    "some" Cleveland "Yankees riveted 27 units"
    Author, you can hate the United States as you like, but at least respect the enemy. Minus. The article is excellent, BUT ...
  • Mikola
    Mikola 27 June 2013 14: 23 New
    0
    And Oleg Kaptsov, as always, writes in the style of marine humor) He destroys aircraft carriers with missiles, and missile cruisers with the artillery of that century) And the submarine has the most versatile strike ship. The conclusion of the submarine with guns is the future of the world fleet))) As for me, the author has a violation of the perception of facts or he writes such nonsense specifically for PR (there are a lot of comments on his articles). I wonder how many take this fiction seriously ...
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 28 June 2013 17: 23 New
    0
    your article? :))
    http://topwar.ru/13435-linkory-vmf-rossii-blazh-ili-neobhodimost.html
    1. Santa Fe
      28 June 2013 21: 47 New
      0
      Yes, there by the way the last paragraph is missing
      1. Kars
        Kars 28 June 2013 21: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, there by the way the last paragraph is missing

        Whose?

        And by the way, the difference is felt. Is it really my pernicious influence?
        1. Santa Fe
          28 June 2013 23: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Whose?

          there the article ends
          below should be a paragraph that the consequences of the hits are unpredictable
          Quote: Kars
          And by the way, the difference is felt. Is it really my pernicious influence?

          Including - we have been discussing the topic for more than a year, many interesting cases have been considered

          In the topic of battleships, everything is true - in order to provide at least minimal protection in our time, we need a belt and deck 200 mm and a ship of thousands in 30 tons. And that is not a fact that will help in difficult times
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 June 2013 05: 16 New
            0
            Well, it concerns cruisers, therefore, they do not book more - a maximum of a little Kevlar.
          2. Kars
            Kars 29 June 2013 08: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and a ship of thousands in 30 tons

            Well, the Russian Federation repairs its miracle ships in 28 000 tons.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            belt and deck 200 mm
            All the same, I think that it is possible to do less --- for sure, at least some kind of progress in metallurgy was
            Quote: Tlauicol
            both cruisers
            The best would talk about how they tested RCC on Nakhimov. Otherwise the topic hung in the air.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 June 2013 12: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Well, the Russian Federation repairs its miracle ships in 28 000 tons.

              One for the whole world

              But what about the rest of the fleets?
              1. Kars
                Kars 29 June 2013 15: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                One for the whole world

                I understand a couple more)))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                But what about the rest of the fleets?

                envy)) I’m joking. Not a coat with a nuclear reactor. So the boat of my dreams will remain only a dream. But he would have torn everyone anyway)))
            2. tlauicol
              tlauicol 29 June 2013 19: 46 New
              0
              http://www.ivb.com.ua/publikatsii/13-proekt82-4
              http://flot.sevastopol.info/ship/cruiser/admiral_nahimov.htm
              1. Kars
                Kars 29 June 2013 20: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                http://flot.sevastopol.info/ship/cruiser/admiral_nahimov.htm

                Quote: Tlauicol
                100-130 mm through both sides

                Already not 130 mm, but 100 as a last resort, while striking from the inside. And hit the unarmored side.
                Quote: Tlauicol
                http://www.ivb.com.ua/publikatsii/13-proekt82-4

                .G. Gorshkov) 7 KSS missiles were fired into the compartment. All missiles hit the hull, breaking through a double, and in some places a triple layer of armor. Subsequently, KSSh and P-15 rockets and various other types of aviation and naval weapons were fired at the compartment. The tormented compartment was disassembled for metal only in the early 60s (according to some reports - in 1962)
                wherever, whether the armor sheets are installed properly, where there is a double layer of armor.
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Stalingrad 230 mm side.
                By the way, also not found


                Although it would be worthwhile to think that even in the absence of active means of fighting for survivability, the Stalingrad citadel demonstrated the high efficiency of the armor and underwater defense design, successfully withstanding numerous bombings, torpedo and artillery hits, sharply limiting the amount of destruction caused by missile hits. If the cruisers of the Stalingrad type were completed in due time, and then modernized with the installation of rocket strike and anti-aircraft weapons, then they could still remain quite formidable ships
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 30 June 2013 05: 13 New
                  0
                  in the next I’ll write: “the light cruiser pierced through, the side of the cruiser cruiser” so that you would not bother
                  and if shipbuilders cannot reserve the entire ship so that it does not roll over, then, as Roy Jones said: “Gain weight or shut up” :))
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 30 June 2013 09: 02 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    in the next I’ll write: “the light cruiser pierced through, the side of the cruiser cruiser,” so that you don’t bother


                    It’s better not to write a light cruiser pierced through non-armored superstructures; when equipped with war warheads, it would explode not within the vital parts of the ship.


                    As for the heavy cruiser, don’t write better, if you can’t tell where the missiles hit, it won’t bring anything new
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    if shipbuilders cannot reserve the entire ship so that it does not turn over -
                    If it goes back to the beginning, the cruisers were sufficiently booked to withstand Exocet’s anti-ship missiles, Harpoon — Soviet miracle rockets of the type mentioned above — had huge dimensions and masses, while the REBs were pretty easy to get away and were a good target for artillery and didn’t have stealth. can be destroyed even by fragments of anti-ship missiles of a downed own anti-aircraft defense at the near turn
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 30 June 2013 10: 19 New
                      0
                      The warhead would explode depending on the delay of the fuse, including at the waterline of the opposite side. as for the citadel - so c. she is c. - wherever you go.
                      the point is that shipbuilders realized that sooner or later the armor would lose to the rocket
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 30 June 2013 15: 05 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Warhead would explode depending on the delay of the fuse, including at the waterline of the opposite side

                        Vryatli, what types of fuses were there?
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        as for the citadel - so c. she is c. - wherever you go.

                        and where did they get to the citadel?
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        the point is that shipbuilders realized that sooner or later the armor would lose to the rocket
                        No, shipbuilders realized that capital ships are not needed in a nuclear war, to the extent that hulls burst at the ticonderoga, and English destroyers burned like candles.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 30 June 2013 16: 16 New
    0
    (C) Vryatli, what types of fuses were there?
    the right fuse to install is not a problem
    (C) where did they get to the citadel?
    do you read messages like, yes, even quoted the link
    (C) No shipbuilders realized that nuclear ships do not need capital ships
    Well, yes, that's why they stopped building capital ships before the appearance of nuclear weapons in the USSR, I'm not talking about anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 June 2013 16: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      the right fuse to install is not a problem

      Come on, they blew up just a big problem. Even for modern Exocets, and you are talking about the USSR of the late 50s
      Quote: Tlauicol
      do you read messages like, yes, even quoted the link

      And where did they get there? They could even get into areas unprotected by armor below the waterline, since the hull was underloaded,
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Well, yes, that's why they stopped building capital ships before the appearance of nuclear weapons in the USSR, I'm not talking about anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads

      The United States has set up so much for the war)))) and the rest was not up to the fat. At the same time, the USSR tried.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 30 June 2013 16: 47 New
    0
    The launch of the Stalingrad citadel took place on April 16, 1954, the aft tip was afloat, and there, in Nikolaev, it was dismantled for metal. Due to an error in the calculations, the building sat down slightly below the estimated waterline.
    Exocet lacks kin. energy, so that the warhead breaks through the armor, and the fuses of the desired type have long been used in shells, bombs, etc. - what are the problems?
    to build capital ships stopped even before the appearance of nuclear weapons in the USSR
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 June 2013 16: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Due to an error in the calculations, the building sat down slightly below the estimated waterline

      Yes, of course, without towers, cars like that, it was empty and sat below the waterline. And then all the time I stood without a roll on any side.
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Exocet lacks kin. energy for the warhead to break through the armor,

      Even after breaking through the sheathing and several bulkheads, the Exocets very often do not explode. So, you will agree that the old ships were less protected from mass anti-ship missiles?
      Quote: Tlauicol
      fuses of the desired type have long been used in shells, bombs, etc. - what are the problems?

      There will be plenty of problems. If even in the mentioned samples fuses quite often failed, even among Germans and Americans.
      Quote: Tlauicol
      to build capital ships stopped even before the appearance of nuclear weapons in the USSR

      Who? Maybe the USSR has not yet pulled a capital ship after the appearance of its atomic weapons.

      A bit about RCC
      The main differences of KSR-11 from KSR-2:
      The missile was equipped with the same high-explosive-cumulative warhead as the KSR-2 (FK-2) for combating naval targets, as well as the FA-11 high-explosive fragmentation for the destruction of ground air defense weapons
      a bit more modern than a comet, and despite such wonderful armor penetration of warheads not of a penetrating type, but of a high-cumulative warhead. Something I did not hear about such warheads with a slowdown.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 30 June 2013 17: 32 New
        0
        ballast water will straighten any roll. old ships are protected from light subsonic missiles, nothing more.
        if the ksr-2 warhead is intended for the sinking of cruisers from 10000 t and higher, why use sophistication with a fuse? if necessary we would develop
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 June 2013 17: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          ballast water will straighten any roll

          To do this, we need pumps, power pumps, etc. That photo is not where it is the target. Where the missiles hit 180 mm, or 50 mm, and were there any armor plates at all.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          old ships are protected from light subsonic missiles, nothing more.

          and modern kartoks are completely unprotected in any way. And even from supersonic, heavy ones - it limits damage. Even in the article
          Based on the test results, the controversial conclusion was made that with the advent of anti-ship missiles and nuclear weapons, the creation of ships with traditional reservation schemes is futile.
          the conclusion is controversial.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          if the ksr-2 warhead is intended for the sinking of cruisers from 10000 t and higher, why use sophistication with a fuse?

          what neglect of ships over 10 thousand tons. And heaps of American TKR still go, American battleships fire at Korea, and what can we say about aircraft carriers on which armor is still
          Quote: Tlauicol
          if you need to develop
          required
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 1 July 2013 06: 51 New
    0
    Does the phrase “belated team in the ballast water intake compartment” not suggestive?
    or "" In 1955, one of the major service tasks was the transfer of the Stalingrad compartment from Nikolaev to Sevastopol. This operation was carried out in three tugboats. It was in May, so everyone was hoping for good weather, and the forecast was good. The Dnieper estuary passed safely, and this is the most difficult part of our journey, but in the area of ​​Cape Tarkhankut the weather began to deteriorate, and we did not have enough power to increase speed. The direction of the wind was unfavorable for us. The amplifying wind created a big wave, the speed came to reduce and we approached Sevastopol in the evening, at about 20 pm The wind intensified to 8 points, a sharp wave started - it was impossible to keep the compartment in the right direction, on course, in this situation it was impossible to enter the Northern Bay with the compartment how could they break the boom, because it is very difficult to keep the exact direction in the dark. Therefore, I decided to stay on the roadstead. But when I turned to the wind, I couldn’t cope, and the whole load was carried ashore near the Quarantine Bay. I gave the command to the compartment to take ballast. But the connection with the compartment was poor, because there was no signalman on the tug, and the captain of the tugboat was busy with the vessel, and he could not constantly transmit orders to the compartment, and the rest of the command personnel did not know and did not know the Morse code to work on the searchlight. One of the mistakes I made is that I did not insist in Nikolaev on the allocation of a signalman with an autonomous means of communication, at least a retriever to my command post. But I did not do that. Therefore, all my commands went to the compartment and were late. And if the ballast reception team had been received in a timely manner, there would have been no big trouble. Fearing that the compartment would pull the tugs along, I had to give the tow rope and the compartment was firmly aground. For this operation, I received a penalty from the fleet commander, but there was no completely my fault and the penalty was weak. After all, the compartment was a displacement of about 40 thousand tons, it is an unfinished heavy cruiser. So sadly this big operation ended. The light cruiser "Kerch" shot the citadel aground.
  • Alex
    Alex 9 September 2013 09: 58 New
    +2
    Great article and with a reasonable amount of humor. Thanks to the author.