Military Review

Steel and fire. The best battleships of World War II

99



By the end of the Second world class of high-speed battleships, it reached its limit in its development, combining in itself the destructive power and security of dreadnoughts with the high speed of the battle cruisers, these samples of marine weapons made a lot of amazing feats under the flags of all the warring states.

It is not possible to compile any “rating” of the battleships of those years - four favorites claim to the first place, and each of them has the most serious reasons. As for the other places of the honorary pedestal, it is generally impossible to make any conscious choice. Only individual tastes and subjective preferences. Each battleship is distinguished by its unique design, chronicle of combat use and, often, history tragic death.

Each of them was created for its own specific tasks and conditions of service, for a specific opponent and in accordance with the chosen application concept fleet.

Different battle theaters dictated different rules: the internal seas or open ocean, proximity or, on the contrary, extreme remoteness of bases. Classic squadron battles with the same monsters or bloody porridge with a reflection of the endless air attacks and shelling of fortifications on the enemy coast.

Ships can not be considered in isolation from the geopolitical situation, the state of the scientific, industrial and financial spheres of states - all this left a considerable mark on their design.

A direct comparison between any Italian “Littorio” and the American “North Caroline” is completely excluded.

Nevertheless, applicants for the title of the best battleship are visible to the naked eye. These are “Bismarck”, “Tirpitz”, “Iowa” and “Yamato” - the ships about which have been heard even by those who have never been interested in the fleet.

Life according to the precepts of Sun Tzu

... Her Majesty's battleships Anson and Duke of York, aircraft carriers Victories, Furyes, escort aircraft carriers Sicher, Empire, Pesyuer, Fanser, cruiser Belfast, Bellona , “Royalist”, “Sheffield”, “Jamaica”, destroyers “Javelin”, “Virago”, “Meteor”, “Swift”, “Vigilent”, “Wakeful”, “Onslot” ... - there are about 20 units under the British , Canadian and Polish flags, as well as 2 naval tankers and 13 deck squadrons aviation.

Only in such a composition in April 1944 of the year did the British venture to approach the Alta Fjord - where, under the gloomy vaults of the Norwegian cliffs, the pride of Kriegsmarine, the Tirpitz superbattle, rusted.
The results of the operation "Wolfram" are estimated as controversial - deck aircraft managed to bomb the German base and cause serious damage to the add-ons of the battleship. However, the next "Pearl Harbor" did not work - the British could not inflict "Tirpitz" fatal wounds.

Steel and fire. The best battleships of World War II


The Germans lost an 123 man killed, but the battleship still posed a threat to shipping in the North Atlantic. The main problems were caused not so much by numerous bombs falling and fires on the upper deck, as the newly discovered leaks in the underwater part of the hull are the result of a previous British attack using mini-submarines.

... In total, during the stay in the Norwegian waters, Tirpitz sustained dozens of air strikes - in the aggregate, during the war years, battleships on the battleship took part near 700 of British and Soviet aircraft! In vain.

Hiding behind the anti-torpedo network, the ship was invulnerable to the Allied torpedo weapons. At the same time, aerial bombs proved ineffective against such a well-protected target; it was possible to crush the battleship’s armored stronghold for an infinitely long time, but the destruction of the superstructures could not critically affect the Tirpitz’s combat capability.

Meanwhile, the Britons stubbornly rushed to the site of the Teutonic beast: mini-submarines and man-torpedoes; raids of deck and strategic aviation. Local agent informers, regular base tracking from the air ...

"Tirpitz" became a unique embodiment of the ideas of the ancient Chinese commander and thinker Sun Tzu ("The Art of War") - without firing a single shot at enemy ships, he bound all British actions in the North Atlantic for three years!

One of the most effective warships of the Second World War, the invincible Tirpitz turned into an ominous scarecrow for the British Admiralty: the planning of any operation began with the question “What to do if
"Tirpits" leave his parking lot and go out to sea?

It was Tirpitz that scared the escort of the PQ-17 convoy. He was hunted by all the battleships and aircraft carriers of the metropolitan fleet in the Arctic. The K-21 boat fired at him. For his sake, "Lancaster" from the Royal Air Force settled at the airport Yagodny near Arkhangelsk. But everything turned out to be useless. The British were able to destroy the super-battleship only at the end of the war with the help of the monstrous 5-ton bombs "Tallboy".


Tallboy

The impressive success of the Tirpitz battleship is a legacy left over from the legendary Bismarck, a linear ship of the same type, meeting with which forever instilled fear in the hearts of the British: before their eyes froze a burial pillar of flame hovering over the HMS Hood British cruiser. During the battle in the Danish Strait, the gloomy Teutonic knight needed only five volleys to deal with the British “gentleman”.


"Bismarck" and "Prince Eugen" in the combat campaign

And then came the hour of reckoning. A squadron of 47 ships and 6 submarines of Her Majesty chased the Bismarck. After the battle, the British calculated: to flood the beast, they had to launch 8 torpedoes and 2876 shells of the main, medium and universal caliber!


What a burly man!


The hieroglyph "loyalty." Battleships type "Yamato"

There are three useless things in the world: the pyramid of Cheops, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato ... Really?

With the battleships Yamato and Musashi, the following story took place: they were unfairly slandered. A stable image of "losers", useless "wenderwafel" shamefully died at the first meeting with the enemy.

But in fact, we have the following:

The ships were designed and built at a given time, managed to make war and finally took a heroic death in the face of numerically superior enemy forces.

What else is required of them?

Bright victories? Alas, in the situation in which Japan was in the period of 1944-45, even the sea king Poseidon himself could hardly have been able to act better than the battleships Musashi and Yamato.



Disadvantages of super-battleships?

Yes, first of all, weak air defense - neither the monstrous 3 sansiki fireworks (460 mm caliber anti-aircraft projectiles) nor hundreds of small-caliber store-fed automatic machines could replace modern anti-aircraft guns and control systems with radar adjustment.

Weak PTZ?
I am begging you! Musashi and Yamato died after torpedo hits from 10-11 - no battleship on the planet would have survived so much (for comparison, the likelihood of the death of American Iowa from six torpedoes, according to the calculations of the Americans themselves, was estimated at 90%) .

Otherwise, the battleship "Yamato" corresponded to the phrase "the most, the most"

The largest battleship in history and, concurrently, the largest warship that took part in World War II.
70 thousand tons full displacement.
The main caliber is 460 mm.
Bronepoyas - 40 centimeters solid metal.
The walls of the conning tower are half a meter of armor.
The thickness of the frontal part of the tower GK even more - 65 centimeters of steel protection.

Grand spectacle!

The main miscalculation of the Japanese is a veil of extreme secrecy, enveloping everything connected with the Yamato battleships. To date, there are only a few photos of these monsters - mostly made from the board of American aircraft.

And in vain!

Such ships should have been proud and in earnest scared the enemy with them - after all, the Yankees, until the last moment, were sure that they were dealing with ordinary battleships, with 406 mm caliber guns.

With a competent PR policy, the very news of the existence of the Yamato and Musashi battleships could have caused panic among the commanders of the US Navy and their allies, just as it happened with Tirpitz. The Yankees would rush to build similar ships with half-meter armor and 460 caliber guns or even 508 mm - in general, it would be fun. The strategic effect of the Japanese super-battleships could be much larger.


Museum "Yamato" in Kure. The Japanese cherish the memory of their "Varyag"


How did the leviathans die?

"Musashi" went all day in the Sibuyan Sea under heavy squall attacks of aircraft from five US aircraft carriers. He walked all day, and by the evening he died, having received, according to various estimates, 11-19 torpedoes and 10-17 aircraft bombs ...
Do you think that the security and combat stability of the Japanese battleship were great? And who of his peers could repeat this?

Yamato ... death from on high was his fate. Traces of torpedoes, black from the planes of the sky ...
Speaking frankly, Yamato made an honorable seppuku, leaving as part of a small squadron against eight aircraft carriers of the 58 th operational connection. The result is predictable - two hundred planes tore apart the battleship and its small escort in two hours.

The era of high technology. Iowa Type Battleships

What if?
What if instead of "Yamato", towards the 58-th operative connection of Admiral Mitscher went out a battleship identical to the American "Iowa"? What if Japanese industry managed to create air defense systems similar to those that existed at that time on US Navy ships?

What would end the battle between the battleship and the American aircraft carriers, if the Japanese sailors had systems similar to Mk.37, Ford Mk.I Gunfire Control Computer, SK, SK-2, SP, SR, Mk.14, Mk.51, Mk.53 ...?

Masterpieces of technical progress are hiding behind dry indices — analog computers and automatic fire control systems, radars, radio altimeters and shells with a radar fuse — thanks to all these “tricks”, the Iow anti-aircraft fire was at least five times more accurate and effective than the shots of the Japanese anti-aircraft gunners .

And considering the terrifying rate of fire of the Mk.12 anti-aircraft guns, the extremely effective 40 mm Boforsa and band-fed Oerlikon machine guns ... There is a considerable chance that an attack by the American air force could have choked in blood and a damaged neo-Yamato could walk to Okinawa and run aground, turning into an invincible artillery battery (according to the plan of operation Ten-Ichi-Go).

Everything could be ... alas, Yamato went to the seabed, and an impressive complex of anti-aircraft weapons became the prerogative of American Iowa.



To put up with the idea that the best ship - again with the Americans, is absolutely impossible. Haters in the United States in a flash will find a dozen reasons why Iowa cannot be considered the most perfect battle ship.

“Iowa” is severely criticized for the lack of medium caliber (150 ... 155 mm) - unlike any German, Japanese, French or Italian battleships, American ships were forced to fight off enemy attacks with universal anti-aircraft guns (5 inches, 127 mm).

Also, among the shortcomings of “Iowa” is the lack of transshipment compartments in the towers of the Civil Code, the worst seaworthiness and “flotation per wave” (compared to the same British “Vanguard”), the relative weakness of their PTZ before the Japanese “long lance”, “muhlezh” with the declared maximum speed (on the measured mile, the battleships could hardly accelerate to the 31 node - instead of the declared 33's!).

But perhaps the most serious of all the accusations is the weakness of the reservation compared to any of their peers - especially the Iowa traverse bulkheads cause many questions.



Of course, the defenders of the American shipbuilding are now coming off the ferry, arguing that all the above-mentioned shortcomings of the “Iowa” are just an illusion, the ship was designed for a specific situation and perfectly matched the conditions of the Pacific theater of military operations.

The lack of medium caliber became the advantage of American battleships: to combat surface and air targets, there were enough universal "five-inch" - to take on board the 150 mm guns as "ballast" did not make sense. And the presence of “advanced” fire control systems finally leveled the lack of a “medium caliber” factor.

Reproaches for poor seaworthiness are a purely subjective opinion: “Iowa” has always been considered an extremely stable artillery platform. As for the strong "overwhelming" bow of the battleship in stormy weather - this myth was born already in our time. More modern sailors were surprised by the habits of an armored monster: instead of quietly swaying on the waves, the heavy "Iowa" cut the waves like a knife.

The increased wear of the GK barrels is explained by very heavy projectiles (which is not bad) - the Mk.8 armor-piercing machine with a 1225 kg mass was the heaviest ammunition of its caliber in the world.

With the assortment of shells, “Iowa” had no problems at all: the ship had a whole set of armor-piercing and high-explosive ammunition and charges of various capacities; after the war, “cluster” Mk.144 and Mk.146 appeared, stuffed with explosive grenades in the number of 400 and, accordingly, 666 pieces. A bit later, the Mk.23 special ammunition with a nuclear warhead 1 CT was developed.



As for the “shortage” of the design speed on the measuring mile, the Iow tests were carried out at the limited power of the power plant - just like that, for no good reason, to force the cars to the design 254 000 hp lean Yankees refused.

The general impression of the “Iowa” can ruin only their relatively low security ... however, this disadvantage is more than compensated by the many other advantages of the battleship.

"Iowa" have more service than all the other WWII battleships put together - World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq ... The battleships of this type survived all - the modernization of the middle 1980-s allowed to extend the service life of veterans until the beginning of the XXI century - the battleships lost parts artillery weapons, in return for receiving 32 SLCM "Tomahawk", 16 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon", the air defense system "SiSperrou", modern radar and melee systems "Phalanx".




Off the coast of iraq

However, the physical wear of the mechanisms and the end of the Cold War played a significant role in the fate of the most famous American battleships - all four monsters left the US Navy ahead of schedule and turned into major naval museums.


Well, favorites are defined. Now it is time to mention a number of other armored monsters - after all, each of them is worthy of his portion of surprise and admiration.



For example, “Jean Bart” is one of two built battleships of the Richelieu type. Elegant French ship with a unique silhouette: two four-turrets in the bow, a stylish superstructure, smartly curved back chimney ...

Battleships of the "Richelieu" type are considered to be among the most advanced ships in their class: having less displacement on the 5-10 thousand tons than any Bismarck or Littorio, the French practically did not yield to them in terms of weapons power, and in the parameter " security ”- the scheme and thickness of the booking“ Richelieu ”was even better than that of many of his larger peers. And all this was successfully combined with the speed of more than 30 nodes - the “Frenchman” was the fastest of the European battleships!



The unusual fate of these battleships: the flight of unfinished ships from the shipyard, to avoid capture by the Germans, naval battle with the British and American fleets in Casablanca and Dakar, repairs in the United States, and then a long happy service under the flag of France until the second half of the 1960-s.

But the magnificent trio from the Apennine Peninsula - Italian battleships like "Littorio".

These ships are usually the object of harsh criticism, but if you apply an integrated approach in their assessment, it turns out that the Littorio battleships are not so bad compared to their British or German peers, as is commonly believed.

The project was based on the ingenious concept of the Italian fleet - to hell with greater autonomy and fuel supply! - Italy is located in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, all the bases near by.
The saved load reserve was spent on armor and weapons. As a result, the Littorio had 9 main-caliber guns in three rotating towers — more than any of their European “colleagues.”


"Roma"

Noble silhouette, high-quality contours, good seaworthiness and high speed - in the best traditions of the Italian school of shipbuilding.

Clever anti-torpedo protection based on Umberto Pulese calculations.

At a minimum, the scheme with spaced booking is noteworthy. In general, in all that relates to booking, battleships of the “Littorio” type deserve the highest marks.

And the rest ...
And the rest of the Italian battleships turned out to be nasty - still remains a mystery, why the Italians shot their guns so wryly - despite their excellent armor penetration, 15-inch Italian shells had surprisingly low accuracy and accuracy. Reforming gun barrels? The quality of the manufacture of liners and shells? Or maybe it was due to the national peculiarities of the Italian character?



In any case, the main problem of Littorio type battleships was their mediocre use. The Italian sailors did not succeed in engaging in a general battle with the fleet of Her Majesty. Instead, the head "Littorio" was sunk right on its anchorage, during the British raid on the naval base of Taranto (cheerful slopes were too lazy to pull the anti-torpedo net).

The “Vittorio Veneto” raid against the British convoys in the Mediterranean Sea was no better, and the battered ship was barely able to return to base.

In general, nothing good came up with Italian battleships. More brightly and more tragically, the battleship “Roma” completed its combat path, disappearing in a deafening explosion of its own artillery grounds - the result of the accurate hit of the German Fritz-X controlled bombs (bombs? Poorly said. 1360-kilogram Frit-X ammunition was a little like ordinary bomb).

Epilogue.

Battleships have been different. Among them were formidable and effective. There were no less formidable, but ineffective. But each time, the fact that the enemy had such ships delivered the opposite side a lot of trouble and anxiety.
Battleships always remain battleships. Powerful and destructive ships with the highest combat stability.





Based on:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/
http://korabley.net/
http://www.navy.mil.nz/
http://navycollection.narod.ru/
http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://navsource.org/
Author:
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ICT
    ICT 5 September 2013 08: 25
    +2
    why do we happen to be talking about the English miracle of technology, especially about the fate of one of them
    1. Crang
      Crang 5 September 2013 08: 37
      0
      It . The weakest battleship 2MB.
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 5 September 2013 08: 56
        +3
        If you write about English miracles, then you need to write about Vangard. Certainly no worse than Richelieu. Or is he, according to the author, not suitable because he did not take part in 2MB?
        1. Crang
          Crang 5 September 2013 14: 57
          +2
          Surely worse. Collected from the bins what was. Maybe better than Bismarck, but Vanguard can't even be compared to Richelieu.
      2. Veles25
        Veles25 5 September 2013 09: 05
        +3
        ......................
    2. Veles25
      Veles25 5 September 2013 09: 03
      +4
      .................
      1. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 5 September 2013 16: 12
        +2
        Generally interesting review.
        In my opinion, the author should not have belittled Jean Bar and Richelieu, the French built extremely successful ships. In terms of protection, they definitely look the best among European battleships. And against the background of the larger-caliber Yankees and Japs, they are far from outsiders.
        1. Beck
          Beck 5 September 2013 19: 22
          +2
          Yeah. An objective article, without groaning not their own and hatred.
    3. 755962
      755962 5 September 2013 21: 02
      +1
      Quote: TIT
      English chyudo

      Battleships of the "Nelson" type. After the signing of the Washington Agreement of Great Britain, it was allowed to build 2 battleships. However, now the designers faced a very difficult task. It was required to create a heavily armed and well-protected ship with a displacement limited to 35000 tons. The British managed to solve this problem successfully.
      1. yehat
        yehat 24 February 2015 16: 40
        0
        successful ??? Nelson was actually created specifically for the siege of the fortifications of Leningrad.
        Due to the shallow waters of the Baltic, there were stringent requirements that led to a successfully completed but very expensive design. At the same time, part of the ship’s equipment, operational capabilities, and protection were affected due to weight savings. You can pay tribute to arrogance for perseverance, but the ship can not be called successful.
    4. Civil
      Civil 6 September 2013 08: 52
      0
      And now our Petruccio is the largest :-)
  2. Su-9
    Su-9 5 September 2013 08: 59
    +1
    If you write about English miracles, then you need to write about Vangard. Certainly no worse than Richelieu. Or is he, according to the author, not suitable because he did not take part in 2MB?
  3. Megatron
    Megatron 5 September 2013 09: 06
    -7
    The best battleships we have - EAGLES!
    1. ICT
      ICT 5 September 2013 09: 14
      +3
      Quote: Megatron
      The best battleships we have - EAGLES!


      rather than embarrassing what it is Cruisers of the 1144 Orlan Project
      1. Megatron
        Megatron 6 September 2013 16: 36
        0
        By the name of the cruiser, but by the fact - battleships, I don’t understand why my previous comment caused so much negative.
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 6 September 2013 19: 49
          0
          Because "Orlan", if you take it in the context of battleships ... is more of a Battlecruiser, in the sense that it can hit hard, but if you hit it ... then it won't seem enough, I mean if it gets hit ...
          1. Megatron
            Megatron 6 September 2013 19: 56
            0
            And who will "seem a little"?
    2. Santa Fe
      5 September 2013 13: 07
      +1
      Quote: Megatron
      The best battleships we have - EAGLES!

      What put the cons, human rights)))
      1. Bosk
        Bosk 7 September 2013 19: 24
        0
        The "Hood" was also larger in size than some battleships, but in the very first serious alteration, its cruising essence, not the best for a linear battle, appeared.
    3. dipqrer
      dipqrer 29 September 2014 22: 08
      +1
      I agree. 1144 has constructive protection and the most powerful
      armament. Can be considered a new hypostasis of the battleship.
  4. Cormorants
    Cormorants 5 September 2013 09: 22
    +2
    Did the Soviet Union have battleships in the 2 World War?
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 5 September 2013 09: 47
      +2
      yes. but these were old (but modernized) battleships from tsarist times. there were 3 of them (I can be wrong). The Marat battleship defended (very effectively) Leningrad (the most shooting battleship 2 mv), was on the Black Sea battleship (there I don't remember the name) .In general, we also have something to be proud of in terms of battleships' actions at that time.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 5 September 2013 10: 03
        -4
        What battleship was on the Black Sea? It seems that the only "Empress Maria" flew into the air during the First World War. There were cruisers there, and the Black Sea fleet acted very effectively at the beginning of the war, and it did much to defend Sevastopol, Kerch, Novorossiysk.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 10: 06
          +4
          Quote: Prometey
          And what battleship was on the Black Sea?

          "Paris Commune", aka "Sevastopol". transferred from the Baltic back in the 30s
    2. loft79
      loft79 5 September 2013 09: 50
      +2
      They were, but rather weak and old, albeit modernized.
      1. Bosk
        Bosk 6 September 2013 19: 56
        +1
        Our battleships are quite unique in a sense, on the one hand it is a squadron battleship, but the location of the artillery, speed and even what little things indicate that it is more of a coastal defense battleship, which, by the way, they showed well in the Great Patriotic War, with the only difference that they mostly fired not at sea targets, but at land targets. I apologize for the term "coastal defense battleship", it just so happened in my head.
        1. klim44
          klim44 10 September 2013 17: 20
          0
          What's true is true - UNIQUE !!! In the Tsa fleet they had a nickname - "project of the frightened", weak armor, high speed, weak main battery (compare in the simultaneously commissioned "Imperial of India"), weak seaworthiness ("Sevastopol" got into a storm in Biscay and after repairs in France went to the Black Sea). It was because of the fear of losing these miraculous ships from the shell from the German battleship, the headquarters in WWI did not let them into battle, they walked along the Tallinn-Helsinki route throughout the war. The Baltic sailors rebelled from idleness.
    3. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 5 September 2013 09: 56
      +2
      Quote: Cormorants
      Did the Soviet Union have battleships in the 2 World War?


      Yes they were! "October Revolution" (formerly Gangut), "Marat" (formerly Petropavlovsk) and "Paris Commune" (formerly Sevastopol). It is clear that they are all pre-revolutionary buildings, but the "Soviet Union" was not built, and these ships are quite worthy of mentioning in the article!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 10: 05
        +8
        Excuse me, where are they worthy of mentioning? Technically, our battleships during WWII looked advantageous only against the background of Spanish dreadnoughts. Their combat path does not boggle the imagination at all. "Marat" died at the beginning of the war. The "Paris Commune" sat out when Manstein's units drowned the Crimea in blood (although the support of a dozen 305-mm would have been ... to put it mildly, not superfluous) and did not show itself in anything later. "Oktyabrina" spent the whole war at the wall, even when the German cruisers (1944!) With might and main hammered our advancing troops, shooting the barrels almost to the holes ...
        1. Val_y
          Val_y 5 September 2013 13: 36
          +2
          Yours is not true, firstly "Marat" did not die, but it was first damaged on 23.09.1941/31.10.1941/3, and from 4/2/15 towers No. 3000 and XNUMX, and then No. XNUMX plus all medium and anti-aircraft art, together with LK "October Revolution" hammered the Fritzes before lifting the blockade. "Sevastopol" made XNUMX campaigns, conducted about XNUMX rounds of the main battery, so I strongly disagree. They did a lot for VICTORY.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 14: 39
            +6
            Quote: Val_Y
            Your untruth

            Yah?:))
            Quote: Val_Y
            firstly "Marat" did not die

            Well, if you think that after the battleship practically fell apart in half and lay to the bottom from the explosion of the cellars of the bow tower of the Civil Code (and the giant nose superstructure collapsed), he did not die - your will. The fact that the ship never went to sea again obviously does not convince you either.
            Quote: Val_Y
            and then # 2 plus all the middle and anti-aircraft art, together with the October Revolution LK, they hammered the Fritzes until the blockade was lifted.

            Well, then, "Chervona Ukraina" did not die either - after the "damage" of the ship, its art also shot at the Fritz
            Quote: Val_Y
            "Sevastopol" made 15 trips, spent about 3000 rounds of the main battery, so I strongly disagree

            Trim the sturgeon, please.
            Would you like to list these "hikes" by name? No? Then I will list
            1) The battleship leaves Sevastopol in Poti. Just because in Sevastopol it has become dangerous and airplanes can fly. Here is such a military campaign. Not a single shot.
            2) The battleship leaves Poti for Novorossiysk. Now this is at least somewhat similar to a military campaign - in Novorossiysk he was attacked by aircraft and a battleship, firing 189 76-mm and 320 37-mm shells (a small air raid on ammunition consumption) even shot down one bomber. The campaign on this is over.
            3) The battleship leaves Novorossiysk back to Poti. Without firing a shot. This is the third "combat" campaign.
            And after these masterpiece "campaigns" the battleship AZH SIX times (27-30 December 1941, 5-6 January, 6-7 January, 10-13 January, 26-28 February, and finally 20-23 March 1942) really participated in military campaigns, he went to shell enemy positions.
            Total - 9 outings to sea and 6 combat campaigns. If anything, the struggle for Crimea and the defense of Sevastopol lasted from 12 of September 1941 to 9 of July 1942 i.e. 10 months. 6 exits in 10 months ...
            During this time, the battleship fired 1159 shells of the main caliber and 1169 shells of 120-mm mine artillery. So your recommended 3000 GK rounds are not even recruited in total.
            The battleship did not receive combat damage, the only losses in the crew - three died during the storm. Probably, there were those who died among those 540 people who left the battleship in the marines, but they, in all respects worthy of action, have nothing to do with the battle path of the battleship
            Quote: Val_Y
            They did a lot for VICTORY.

            Yeah ...
            1. carbofo
              carbofo 6 September 2013 12: 53
              0
              Tirepits, generally did not go anywhere.
            2. Bosk
              Bosk 6 September 2013 20: 00
              0
              To count more bombs on the "Marat" bombs were dropped, if it were not for him, then these bombs would fall on a peaceful city or on our troops.
      2. klim44
        klim44 10 September 2013 17: 23
        0
        For accuracy, I will also call the Arkhangelsk LK in the North, aka HMS Royal Sovereign
    4. Kovrovsky
      Kovrovsky 5 September 2013 09: 59
      0
      The battleship Sovetsky Soyuz remained unfinished.
    5. Uzoliv
      Uzoliv 5 September 2013 22: 00
      +1
      In addition to the three battleships inherited by the USSR from tsarist Russia, in May 1944 (under the Lend-Lease program) the Soviet Navy received the British battleship Royal Soverin, which we now call Arkhangelsk. The ship is also not new (1915), but it was more powerful in terms of combat characteristics. So, technically, during the war, we had four battleships.
  5. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 5 September 2013 09: 23
    0
    What about Nelson type battleships? It seems like they also deserve attention.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 10: 01
      +2
      Quote: Zerstorer
      What about Nelson type battleships?

      This type of ship was a transitional (like Hood) between the battleships PMV and battleships WWII. In general, the ship should be described as unsuccessful. As a GK, the battleship had rather disgusting 406-mm guns, and even with a light projectile. However, the reservation (although it was a step forward relative to the British battleships PMV) was still quite limitedly protected from 380-406-mm shells. The full speed is lower than low, although according to the passport the battleships should have given 23 knots, in practice they rarely gave out more 18-19 knots, giving way even to the old dreadnought from the WWI. Due to the concentration of all 3 towers in the nose and the insufficient strength of the hull, the battleship received considerable damage from firing its own cannons. Air defense battleship was rather weak.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 09: 55
    +7
    Good review article :) Some additions
    "Musashi" went all day in the Sibuyan Sea under heavy squall attacks of aircraft from five US aircraft carriers. He walked all day, and by the evening he died, having received, according to various estimates, 11-19 torpedoes and 10-17 aircraft bombs ...

    And he could have survived :))) In essence, "Musashi" died as a result of a pure accident - for some reason ALL the air attacks of the Americans were concentrated on a single ill-fated battleship and it turned out to be "Musashi". The rest of the battleships received almost no damage. If at least one attack had been carried out not on Musashi, but on other ships, most likely by evening Musashi remained "pretty plucked, but undefeated."
    What would end the battle between the battleship and the American aircraft carriers, if the Japanese sailors had systems similar to Mk.37, Ford Mk.I Gunfire Control Computer, SK, SK-2, SP, SR, Mk.14, Mk.51, Mk.53 ...?

    Yes, in the same way, about twice as many planes would simply die. Despite the most advanced fire control systems, the effectiveness of air defense of American battleships is not at all amazing.
    Here, for example, most people interested in history believe that American ships, having got at their disposal shells with radio fuses, improved their air defense almost by orders of magnitude. At the same time, there are interesting statistics - if the Americans spent about 1000 of conventional anti-aircraft 127-mm shells to destroy one aircraft, then shells with a radio fuse were about 700. Those. the effect is, the effect is significant, but the gap is not at all monstrous.
    And what does this expense mean? For example, enemy torpedo bombers attack the American battleship. The firing range of the American 127-mm / 38 MK12 is 16 thousand meters, but this is the limit, it is clear that from such a distance you can’t shoot at planes. But today I’m kind - we believe that the American battleship can bombard planes from 16 km (it’s fantastic, but still) Suppose torpedo bombers fly directly at the battleship with an unbelievable speed of 350 km / h. Accordingly, 16 km the plane will fly in 2,7 minutes, but we will consider what three (I repeat, today I am unusually kind to American battleships).
    The same Iowa has 5 paired installations of 127-mm guns on board. Five rigs and 10 trunks. The rate of fire is usually indicated by the 15-22 shot, but it is not clear - is this the rate of fire of the gun or gun? Let's say guns, i.e. each of the 10 American trunks fires 22 shells per minute, and in 3 minutes - 66 shells, and 10 barrels - 660 shells and ... stop.
    It turns out that even having opened fire from the extreme distance (which is fantastic), even having developed the maximum rate of fire (which is also fantastic, in fact), the American battleship DOES NOT GET the right number of shots to guarantee the downing of at least ONE plane ?! Alas, it is.
    Of course, torpedo bombers usually attacked from more than one side, the same Japanese preferred star raids, attacking from different angles. In this case, the ship is usually a star and .... shone :))) But if the Iowa is attacked from both sides, then the number of shells it fired reaches (according to our calculations) 1320 shells, and, probably, for an almost guaranteed torpedo in board ONE plane from a 127-mm battleship would have shot down guaranteed, the second - it is doubtful but possible. This - with boundless assumptions in favor of the American air defense. Of course, there are also 40-mm "bofors" (20-mm erlikons did not suffer any serious combat effectiveness), but how much can they be? And don't underestimate the 25mm Japanese anti-aircraft guns. They lacked an effective firing range, right, but they already had remote control and could aim at the target in groups (!) And directly from the fire control posts.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 September 2013 12: 58
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      for some reason ALL the air attacks of the Americans were concentrated on a single ill-fated battleship and it turned out to be the Musashi.

      Not certainly in that way. The Nagato received serious bomb damage. EMNIP put one torpedo into the side of "Maya"
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      If, on the destruction of one aircraft, the Americans spent about 1000 conventional 127 mm anti-aircraft shells, then about 700 rounds with a radio fuse.

      You just didn’t read the table like that. VT fuze consumption - from 200 to 550 per aircraft
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The rate of fire is usually indicated 15-22 shots, but it is not clear - is the rate of installation or guns?

      per barrel
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The same Iowa - 5 twin installations of 127-mm guns on board.

      Do you forget about the air defense warrant - four (six?) Destroyers + the Yahagi cruiser
      Imagine that their air defense is identical to the Fletchers
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      DOESN'T GET the right number of shots to guarantee a shot down at least ONE plane ?! Alas, it is.

      Not this way
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Of course, there are also 40-mm "bofors" (20-mm erlikons did not suffer any serious combat effectiveness), but how much can they be?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 14: 08
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not certainly in that way. Serious bomb damage was received by "Nagato"

        2 bombs fell into it and there were 3 close gap. How many planes attacked Nagato and when - alas, I don’t know, but the feeling is that just some sort of squadron of dive-pilots got lost
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        EMNIP put one torpedo into the side of "Maya"

        It is true, but the submarine "Day" (SS-247), which planted this torpedo and planted in the air wings of the American AB, was not listed.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You just didn’t read the table like that. VT fuze consumption - from 200 to 550 per aircraft

        This is the first time I see this table at all :))) But it says in English in white that TF spent an average of 550 shells on a non-suicidal pilot, other ships that were not part of the TF - 700 shells. Those. it is still about 550-700 but not about 200-550.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        per barrel

        Obscene words in a public place is not an expression !!!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Do you forget about the air defense warrant - four (six?) Destroyers + the Yahagi cruiser
        Imagine that their air defense is identical to the Fletchers

        So what? These guys don't have a very good SLA, so having a lot of 127 mms isn’t what it solves
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not this way

        Well, let's recount. Battleship (Iowa) - 20 trunks 127-mm, 80 trunks 40-mm and 52 - 20-mm. Light cruiser - such as Atlanta - 16 - 127 mm, 16 - 40 mm and 16-20 mm and 8 destroyers and 8 destroyers of the Giring type - according to 6 127 mm, 16 barrels 40 mm and 11 mm and 20 mm. In total, 84 of the barrel is 127-mm, 224 - 40-mm, 156 - 20-mm.
        In this case, the firing time is determined by the maximum firing range of the guns (which is nonsense, you understand) and the speed of the attacking aircraft in 350 km / h. For 127-mm it is 16 km (3 min) for 40-mm it is 8500 m and 1,5 min (which is complete nonsense, the bofors have an aiming range of 4 thousand m) and for the Erlikon - 3 km and half a minute.
        Moreover, the rate of fire of one barrel is 127-mm - 20 rds / min, 40-mm - 120 rds / min and 20-mm - 450 rds / min. In total, one 127 mm barrel in 3 minutes will release 60 shells, and 84 connection barrel - 5040 shells, 40-mm barrel in 1,5 minutes fire 180 shells (224 connection barrel - 40 320 shells respectively), well, the barrel fires 20 mm 225 shells, 156 barrels - 35100 shells.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 14: 08
          +3
          In total, the American compound in theory, with perfect visibility and intense effective fire at a distance limit of all barrels, can destroy 5040 / 550 = 9-10 planes from 127-mm barrels, 40320 / 6000 = 8-9 planes and 35100 / 30100 - 1-2 aircraft, and in total - about 18-21 aircraft in one attack. A total of 3 attacks were made on Yamato (after the third, it was already a ruin, and Iowa, which did not have such a reserve of combat stability, would have had enough 3 attacks for the eyes.
          All ships took part in repelling the first attack (but, naturally, not all gun mounts, there was no "star raid", so a significant part of the MZA could not fire). In addition, the visibility was extremely disgusting, the planes emerged from behind the clouds at an altitude of a kilometer not far from the ships and there was no question of any 16 km of shooting. Therefore, I believe that I will not be mistaken in estimating the loss of aircraft in the first attack as half of the amount we calculated - i.e. 9-11 cars. But the Japanese lost 1 EM, another was badly damaged. The second attack, alas, could not be met fully armed - the planes entered from the nose of the battleship, almost without being exposed to the escort's fire, and in repelling the third attack, the escort almost did not take part - it huddled in a heap and fell behind.
          Therefore, it is unlikely that aircraft losses during an attack on the American compound would exceed 20-25 aircraft.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 14: 09
            +2
            Oleg, thank you very much for the table! I missed her.
          2. Santa Fe
            5 September 2013 18: 02
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            EMNIP put one torpedo into the side of "Maya"
            It is true, but the submarine "Day" (SS-247), which planted this torpedo and planted in the air wings of the American AB, was not listed.

            Mioko. This cruiser was called Mioko.

            And the submariners, yes, well done. In time fussed
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            TF spent an average of 550 shells on a non-suicidal pilot; other ships that were not part of the TF — 700 shells

            Consumption of shells with a radio fuse (VT) - in both cases ~ 550 per aircraft (NEKAMIKAZE)

            700 - this is how much the usual 5 'rounds were spent on ships that were not part of TF when repelling attacks by Nekamikaze
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            These guys don't have a very good SLA

            The Fletchers and Gearings ?!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            5040/550 = 9-10 aircraft from 127 mm barrels, 40320/6000 = 8-9 aircraft and 35100/30100

            Please explain the logic of your choice of these numbers
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            it is unlikely that the loss of aircraft in an attack on the American compound would exceed 20-25 aircraft.

            Are you kidding me? Dzhans without any directors MK.37, computers MK.I, Bofors and radio fuses shot down 10
          3. Santa Fe
            5 September 2013 18: 22
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In addition, visibility was very disgusting, planes emerged from behind the clouds at a height of a kilometer

            For MK.37 radars, it does not matter
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A total of 3 attacks were made on Yamato

            Twelve minutes later, the Yamato discovered the first American planes with the naked eye, two first wave fighters flying at an altitude of about 12 meters.
            According to American data, the first attack began at 12.20 (according to Japanese, 12 minutes later). It involved 150 aircraft.

            The second attack began almost immediately after the first, at 13 o’clock (according to Japanese data at 13.02). The speed of the battleship at that time was 22 knots.

            According to Japanese data, at 13.37 three torpedoes hit the battleship in the area of ​​the midship of the LB. The auxiliary steering machine was damaged. Battleship shot down one torpedo bomber. At 13.44, two more torpedoes hit the same spot ...

            At 13.45, the last attack began, during which at least four torpedoes hit the ship: one in the PB near 150 frames, two or three in the LB
            http://www.warfleet.ru/yamato.html

            it seems that there were no pronounced "shock waves": the planes were approaching in small groups at intervals of several minutes

            Can you imagine what it means for Yankee planes if, according to your calculations, Yamatoayova knocks down 5-10-20 cars in one run !!!

            Remember, Yamatoiowa's concentrated anti-aircraft fire will affect the effectiveness of attacks

            It’s also good to consider the high speed of Iowa (versus 25 knots. Yamato)
            and its maneuverability (circulation radius of 30 knots - 770 meters !, almost like a destroyer)
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Therefore, it is unlikely that aircraft losses during an attack on the American compound would exceed 20-25 aircraft.

            battle of "South Dakota" at about. Santa cruz
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 5 September 2013 18: 42
              +1
              The myth of the battleship South Dakota

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


              In addition to the aircraft carrier and the South Dakota, the Enterprise compound included 2 cruisers and 8 destroyers. And according to Lundstrom, only 13 aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft artillery fire of the entire compound, i.e. 12 anti-aircraft guns shot down 13 aircraft
              1. Santa Fe
                5 September 2013 19: 05
                +1
                Lundstrom is not the ultimate truth

                Brief chronology of the battle 26.10.42
                9:10 Hornet attacks began
                10:00 Aircraft attacking the Hornet when they retreat find Enterprise and point it at the second-wave aircraft. The beginning of the attack.
                10:08 19 D3A Val dive bombers (24 according to other sources) from the second wave launch an attack. 2 Downed by fighters.
                10:15 Escort ships open fire (South Dakota and San Juan)
                10:17 The first bomb explodes in the immediate vicinity of the side of the AB. Almost immediately, the bomb falls to the deck in front of the Enterprise's front elevator.
                10:19 The second explosion shakes AB
                Altogether 12 Valas were lost.
                10:44 AM Kate's B5N torpedo bombers attack with Zuikaku. Presumably 16 aircraft (according to data from the Portland - 30). 3 are knocked down by Wildkets and 4 are damaged. One bumps into EM Smith
                10:53 The attack is over. 9 Keits shot down. no hits on ships.
                11:15 Entreprise began accepting its aircraft
                11:21 am 17 D3A Val dive bombers with "Junyo" found Enterprise instead of Hornet. Attack. 7 of them were shot down by the art fire of the Enterprise and South Dakota. The rest attacked South Dakota and San Juan. They get one hit each.
                11:35 The attack is over. Fighters could not enter the battle. Only 11 Val out of 17 shot down.


                The main thing is not even how many people shot down - the point is that the Yankees avoided serious damage, all the attacks of the japs ​​were ineffective. And the planes really shot down a lot
                Quote: Tlauicol
                In addition to the aircraft carrier and South Dakota, the Enterprise compound included 2 cruisers and 8 destroyers

                Ну и что?
                As part of the Yamato squadron, there was a cruiser and 4-6 destroyers
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 5 September 2013 19: 16
                  +1
                  Yes, the fact that fighters and 12 ships in total shot down fewer planes than these valiant anti-aircraft gunners of one battleship show
                  1. Santa Fe
                    5 September 2013 19: 29
                    0
                    South Dakota signalmen show exactly as much as there are
                    of 57 aircraft, the Japanese lost 32
                    shot down FOR - 26
                    fighters - 6 (including damaged, which crashed into EM Smith)
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 6 September 2013 04: 56
                      +1
                      Ok! 26 does not equal 32 anyway, even if the vaunted Fletchers have not shot down a single plane! even if your numbers are the ultimate truth hi
                      In short - MYTH
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 20: 04
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Fletchers and Gearings ?!

              The Fletchers and Gearings
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Please explain the logic of your choice of these numbers

              Time under fire * barrel rate of fire * number of barrels / number of projectiles fired at 1 downed aircraft
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Are you kidding me? Dzhans without any directors MK.37, computers MK.I, Bofors and radio fuses shot down 10

              Do you think Americans were 100500 times cooler? :))) Not at all :) The 94 type of control system was quite comparable to the American MKNXX, and the managing director of 37 could direct groups of 95-mm machine guns on their own, all that was left was to change the cassettes and press the trigger on the command.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              battle of "South Dakota" at about. Santa cruz

              In which the battleship, aircraft carrier, 2 cruiser and 8 destroyers repelled 3 waves of Japanese aircraft and shot down 13 aircraft
              1. Santa Fe
                5 September 2013 20: 19
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In which the battleship, aircraft carrier, 2 cruiser and 8 destroyers repelled 3 waves of Japanese aircraft and shot down 13 aircraft

                from which monograph is this statement taken?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Time under fire * barrel rate of fire * number of barrels / number of projectiles fired at 1 downed aircraft

                number of shells fired per 1 downed plane.
                explain the logic by which you selected the numbers from the plate
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Do you think Americans were 100500 times cooler?

                Every five
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                could direct groups of 25 mm machine guns

                Not the same power and range (compared to Bofors)
                and the wrong rate of fire (compared to Erlikon) - food from 15-charge stores


                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The Fletchers and Gearings

                and what is the weakness of their OMS?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 21: 04
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  from which monograph is this statement taken?

                  Lundstrom analyzed American and, most importantly, Japanese loss data in detail. Well, according to him, it turns out that the anti-aircraft artillery of the Americans shot down 13 planes in that battle
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  explain the logic by which you selected the numbers from the plate

                  Fast Carrier section (sorry for my English) non-kamikaze line.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Every five

                  Well, it’s always a pity when the illusions disperse :)
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Not the same power and range (compared to Bofors)

                  Bofors is better, yes. But the 25-mm had its advantages - as I already wrote, the centralized tip-off (the bofors made calculations according to the directors, which are two big differences) in the clip of the 25-mm machine gun had 15 shots, and the bofors only had 4. Plus 25-mm machines are trite more.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  and what is the weakness of their OMS?

                  as far as I know, even on battleships the mechanism did not always provide the correct measurement (stabilization did not have time to compensate for the movement of the deck) but on destroyers ...
                  1. Santa Fe
                    6 September 2013 01: 22
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, according to him, it turns out that the anti-aircraft artillery of the Americans shot down 13 aircraft in that battle

                    Of how many attacked the US Navy squadron?
                    And what does "in that battle" mean? There they were spinning for half a day, several attacks
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Fast Carrier section (sorry for my English) non-kamikaze line.

                    Oh, and then you have everything in the calculation

                    By the way, I wonder why NEFAST Carrier anti-aircraft guns worked more efficiently than Fast Carrier?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    (bofors made calculations according to the directors, and these are two big differences

                    How about reliability and combat survivability? Each battery has its own director, and Yamato ... it seems there is one successfully dropped bomb that deprived the ship of the radar and the MSA
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    in the clip of a 25-mm machine gun there were 15 shots, and in a bofors - only 4.

                    This we invade the scope of Erlikonov
                    ribbon food, 100 shells in a tape

                    The advantage of yap in the trunks is completely leveled
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    as far as I know, even on battleships the mechanism did not always provide the correct measurement (stabilization did not have time to compensate for the movement of the deck) but on destroyers ...

                    In the case of Yamato, the weather was not so bad - wind 5 points

                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 6 September 2013 06: 27
                      +1
                      "Yamato ... it seems there was one successful bomb that deprived the ship of the radar and control system."
                      "Nonsense.
                      The main thing is that the crew, weapons are intact, the move is saved and the hull is NOT torn apart. "

                      Oleg, both quotes are yours. What for Baltimore is nonsense, for Yamato - the beginning of death, so what = whether?
                      1. Santa Fe
                        6 September 2013 14: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        What is nonsense for Baltimore, the beginning of death for Yamato, so what = whether?

                        Yes

                        After all, Baltimore 2013 is not designed to fight with a serious opponent. His task is to protect the crew from the Yinji, kamikaze boats and mortar mines launched by the Papuans while docking in ports in the Middle East

                        And it’s possible to produce Tomahawks and shoot 155 mm cannons at targets beyond the horizon without a radar with a HEADLIGHT
  7. Prometey
    Prometey 5 September 2013 09: 59
    0
    In my opinion, the British have developed a fear of German battleships since the Battle of Jutland in 1916. During World War II, German propaganda did a good job, creating first "bismarcophobia" among the British and then "tirpicophobia". And the exaggeration of the menacingness of these German battleships belongs to the British themselves - to get a slap in the face from a strong "middle man", which was "Bismarck" - is not at all valorous. So they created a myth about the most powerful European battleship.
    By the way, who knows - "Yamato" used its artillery against enemy ships at least once, or did it only frighten planes with them?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 10: 17
      +5
      Quote: Prometey
      In my opinion, the British developed a fear of German battleships

      laughing
      Well, you give :)))) Apparently that's why the English "Rhinaun" drove-chased "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", but did not catch up, because both German battleships were running away so that only their heels sparkled. And the "brilliant" situation, when "Wells" and "Hood" attacked "Bismarck" and admiral Lutiens was attacked by tetanus (as a result of which, with the words "I will not let them knock the battleship out of my ass!" next to the admiral (!) ordered to open fire) By the way, there is still a big question for Lutiens - why didn't he finish off the Wells when he had such an opportunity?
      And how frightened Admiral Fraser was, imposing a battle on the Scharnhorst on the Duke of York ...
      In fact, it was the Germans who had the "Jutland syndrome" and it was the Germans who were stupidly afraid to meet the British battleships at sea.
      Quote: Prometey
      By the way, who knows - "Yamato" used its artillery against enemy ships at least once, or did it only frighten planes with them?

      In the Leyte Gulf, he shot at American escort aircraft carriers
      1. Kars
        Kars 5 September 2013 11: 36
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, I didn’t catch up, because both German battleships were fleeing so

        C'mon call them battleships, with their 11 inches. Rearranging them by 15 inches as intended is another matter ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 11: 48
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          C'mon call them battleships, with their 11 inches.

          So Rinaun, too, did not have enough stars from the sky, and his armor would make its way through these 283-mm almost on both sides ...
          Well, officially Shig still battleships
          1. Kars
            Kars 5 September 2013 11: 51
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So Rinawn also lacked stars from the sky,

            But his guns are clearly more powerful,
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, officially Shig still battleships

            Maybe officially - well, very lightweight battlecruisers, or very heavy cruisers.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 12: 12
              +2
              Quote: Kars
              But his guns are clearly more powerful,

              Yes, especially considering the fact that the 381 mm British received new shells that were slaughter in every way, and not what the British sailors fought in Jutland.
              But nevertheless - the Germans' SLAs are newer and better, the 6 barrels of 381 mm are worse at shooting than the 9 barrels of German ships, the Germans are armored at least twice as well, the ship sizes are the same, at a normal battle distance 70-90 KBT chances of defeating towers / cutting / running approximately equal to that of the British that of the Germans. So Rinaun IMHO is roughly equivalent to Scharnhorst in a duel situation, but there were two ShiG, and Rinaun was one ...
              Quote: Kars
              well very light battlecruisers

              Well, not all the same in caliber of guns! Weight for 30 thousand and powerful armor are also worth something
              1. Kars
                Kars 5 September 2013 12: 27
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                but ShiG was two, and Rinaun was one ...

                Then there are more questions to the German crews, and there was something there — a type of order not to engage in battle with large warships. The Angles had more ships.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Well, not all the same in caliber of guns! Weight for 30 thousand and powerful armor are also worth something

                Well, if you take the standard of Battleship, well, there Bismarck with its 50 000, armor and guns. Well, Sharney will not pull on the LC,
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 12: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  Then there are more questions to the German crews, and there was something there - a type of order not to join the battle with large warships

                  In this case, the British raised a telescope to their knocked out eye and said: "I don't see an order!" :)) But seriously, refusal to attack an equivalent ship with a numerical advantage - what else can you call it, if not fear of English capital ships?
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, if you take the standard of Battleship, well, there Bismarck with its 50 000, armor and guns. Well, Sharni will not pull on the LC

                  Yes, I agree, he does not pull on the battleship, he pulls on a full-fledged battlecruiser. But not hard :)))
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 5 September 2013 13: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    he pulls on a full-fledged battlecruiser.

                    only after re-equipment on two-gun 380 mm towers. Then yes it would be abruptly Ripalsov from rinau.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 15: 01
                      +1
                      They are abruptly
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 5 September 2013 15: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        They are abruptly

                        Well, I don’t know, I don’t know. It didn’t bring any special victories besides Glories.
                        All the same, 11 inch guns, not that, well, not that.
                2. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 5 September 2013 15: 26
                  0
                  If you take Bismarck as a standard, then pull on the good. But they don’t pull only if you take Bismarck's 50000t for the lower bar
          2. Bosk
            Bosk 7 September 2013 19: 30
            0
            "Rhinuan" if that battle cruiser.
      2. Luga
        Luga 5 September 2013 12: 24
        +1
        It would be worth remembering the battle at La Plata. Although "pocket", but still a battleship against several cruisers. I agree with Prometey - the Germans were catastrophically afraid of a naval battle with the British and tried to avoid it whenever possible. The only battle of large ships, if I remember correctly, which the Germans imposed on the British, was when the Glories were sunk, but there the forces were obviously not equal. And so they just ran.
      3. Prometey
        Prometey 5 September 2013 12: 55
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, you give :)))) Apparently that's why the English "Rhinaun" drove-drove "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau"

        Scharnhrost - a parody of the battleship laughing Still do not know how to call them - pocket battleships.
        By the way, what about "Bismarck? What was so terrible about him?"
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the Leyte Gulf, he shot at American escort aircraft carriers

        Unless shot. Really, the most useless warship in the history of the fleet laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 14: 47
          +1
          Quote: Prometey
          Scharnhrost - a parody of the battleship laughing Still do not know how to call them - pocket battleships.

          Yeah, but you didn’t confuse Scharnhorst with a pocket battleship by accident? different types of ships, if that. And if you believe that a ship with a standard displacement of 31-32 thousand tons can be called pocket ...
          Quote: Prometey
          By the way, what about "Bismarck? What was so terrible about him?"

          Just the strongest battleship of the Atlantic at the time of its appearance. And so - nothing ...
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 5 September 2013 15: 28
          0
          You confuse with Scheer
          1. loft79
            loft79 5 September 2013 21: 29
            0
            Yes just Prometey probably meant 283-mm) like the "Admirals" and Lyuttsov.
            Well, not a battleship is a caliber. IMHO.
    2. yehat
      yehat 24 February 2015 17: 03
      +1
      you don’t know what you are talking about. general performance characteristics do not fully reflect the essence of the advantages of German battleships. Their main difference from the English was in the survivability technology created back under Tirpitz (admiral). This was very noticeable in jutland. And the impudent people did not forget this. Equal in performance characteristics the German would GUARANTEEDLY do the impudent. This is a fact that confirmed the skirmish with Hood. That is why Tirpitz was so afraid. Because it is very difficult EVERYWHERE to ensure the presence of at least 2 modern battleships.
  8. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 5 September 2013 10: 03
    +1
    After the battle, the British calculated: in order to flood the beast, they had to fire 8 torpedoes and 2876 shells of the main, medium and universal caliber!

    Inspection of the sunken "Bismarck" showed that the Germans themselves sunk it, having opened the kingstones and received the order to leave the ship.
    1. loft79
      loft79 5 September 2013 10: 16
      +1
      As far as I remember, a torpedo from Swordfish jammed the steering wheels and Bismarck began to write out circulation. Then he was finished off by battleships and a cruiser. Well, when Bismarck finally turned into a floating pot, the Germans opened the kingstones.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 10: 19
      +1
      By the time the Kingstones were discovered, the Bismarck was already sinking. There is such a little book, Müllenheim-Rechberg, he was an artillery officer on the "Bismarck" and one of those who survived after the death of the battleship
  9. goldfinger
    goldfinger 5 September 2013 10: 20
    +3
    Thank! And then zae .. Ali opus about Pindo owls, gay men, etc. . Thanks again. A breath of air in a madhouse.
  10. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 5 September 2013 11: 05
    +3
    Thanks to Oleg for the most interesting article. Very informative. Only after the modernization the Iowa-class battleships did not have the Sea Sparrow, but the Volcano-Phalanxes.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 September 2013 12: 36
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The only battleships of the "Iowa" class, after the modernization, did not have the "Sea Sparrow"

      Yes, I apologize, the Harpoon launcher from afar mistook the Sea Sparrow air defense system


      Mk. 29 Sea Sparrow
  11. Drappier
    Drappier 5 September 2013 11: 20
    +1
    Great stuff, thanks a lot.
  12. Stiletto
    Stiletto 5 September 2013 11: 23
    +1
    Excellent publication. It is a pity that the role of real raiders - "pocket battleships" like the German "Admiral Scheer" - the headache of transatlantic convoys is not reflected. Here they, unlike the same "Tirpitz", fought unrealistically a lot.
  13. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 5 September 2013 11: 32
    +3
    Quote: Stiletto
    Excellent publication. It is a pity that the role of real raiders - "pocket battleships" like the German "Admiral Scheer" - the headache of transatlantic convoys is not reflected. Here they, unlike the same "Tirpitz", fought unrealistically a lot.

    You can also remember the German "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau". These two sidekicks also ruffled the nerves of the British. Sank an aircraft carrier, cruiser, 2 destroyers and 22 transports.
  14. Kars
    Kars 5 September 2013 11: 43
    +1
    _________________
  15. White
    White 5 September 2013 14: 12
    +2
    I read with great interest. Thanks to the author.
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate 5 September 2013 17: 00
    0
    I liked the article that I wanted to challenge - it has already been challenged on the forum)
    I would put American Iowa in the first place, all the same the most successful, in my opinion, combination of all the characteristics.
    1. Santa Fe
      5 September 2013 18: 43
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      I would put American Iowa in the first place, all the same the most successful, in my opinion, combination of all the characteristics.

      I like South Dakota more

      It is shorter than Iowa by 70 meters and less by 10 thousand tons. She has a smaller crew and more modest power plant.
      Consequently, South Dakota is cheaper!

      Armor and weapons - in general, are similar to Iowa (the fact that instead of the Mk.7 guns on South Dakota were used Mk.6 - can be written off for a while - the difference between them is about 2-3 years).

      The only major difference between Iowa and South Dakotas is their speed (an additional 70 meters of Iowa length is used to fit additional boilers and turbines).
      27 knots versus 31-33 Iow - not critical, because that the ships are EXCLUSIVELY RARE at full speed
      1. Gad
        Gad 5 September 2013 19: 50
        0
        It also seems to me that South Dakota is more balanced than Iowa and 3 SDs will be more efficient than 2 Iowas (in terms of construction and maintenance costs). And "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz" are more publicized ships, their protection was even worse than that of "Scharnhorst". So I would put Richelieu in third place.
      2. barbiturate
        barbiturate 6 September 2013 08: 41
        0
        in principle, I agree, just in the review, the emphasis was on Iowa compared to German and Japanese ships, and yes, South Dakota will be more profitable with a completely non-critical difference in characteristics.
      3. Pamir210
        Pamir210 7 September 2013 11: 00
        0
        I agree with you.
        moreover, the experience of their use showed that they were absolutely calmly included in the composition of the formations together with aircraft carriers, the speed of which was more than 30 knots.
      4. yehat
        yehat 24 February 2015 17: 06
        0
        Iow had high demands on autonomy. Therefore, the ships were not very effective in displacement. The Atlantic Ocean is not the Mediterranean Sea, like the Italians.
      5. Engineer
        Engineer 12 August 2015 21: 12
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        27 knots versus 31-33 Iow - not critical, because that the ships are EXCLUSIVELY RARE at full speed


        Yes, it is extremely rare - only during the battle, for which they actually were built.
  17. xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 September 2013 19: 34
    +1
    My voice is still on the German battleships! And even more for Bismarck than for Tirpitz. At least an example of a truly oceanic linear operation with a few serious art. duels. And Grandfleet's panic laughing
    1. Pamir210
      Pamir210 7 September 2013 11: 02
      -1
      no panic.
      tracked down and drowned.
      .
      the weakest (after the Georges) battleships of the Second War.
      moreover, unreasonably expensive.
  18. Selevc
    Selevc 5 September 2013 21: 22
    +1
    Battleships are very beautiful ships - but in mine, by the beginning of World War II, their time had passed ... Some leading countries before the war relied on battleships - especially Axis countries ... It was planned that Hitler’s pocket battleships would be faster than enemy’s battleships (especially England) .. These ships were built and designed with the main goal - The conquest of dominance in the oceans !!! In principle, the whole course of German military operations at the beginning of the war shows that the Germans relied on fast and cost-effective raids of their supercrafts ... But life showed a completely different thing - plywood biplanes costing several thousand dollars put out of action huge ships worth 100 hundred million dollars at that rate !!! Naturally, the Führer was furious - what a waste! And how much money could be used to build ships of a lower and more efficient class or the same U-bots ...

    And then it’s completely sad - not one of the battleships in the whole war has justified the money invested in it ... I think that hardly anyone seriously believes that the battleships were built to cover the landing of fire with their guns or to help the attacking infantry with their fire? And they were more likely a scarecrow than a real threat ...

    And almost all of them, except for the rare "lucky ones" who fell on the battlefield, ended their lives in no way - as floating targets for enemy aircraft or as test benches for the explosions of nuclear charges ...
    The Americans really left several battleships for a long time to "iron" the banana countries - these ships were still useful for such operations ...
  19. Crang
    Crang 5 September 2013 21: 24
    -1
    The author forgot about the battleships of the Borodino type. The most advanced battleships of all times and peoples by all criteria of the efficiency / cost / power type.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 September 2013 21: 49
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      The author forgot about the battleships of the Borodino type.

      let's remember Nelson's "Victory" ...
      Quote: Krang
      The most advanced battleships of all time according to all criteria such as efficiency / cost / power.

      wassat M-dya .... There are no words.
      1. Crang
        Crang 5 September 2013 23: 44
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        M-dya .... There are no words.

        Well, no, I wouldn't comment on words. And then all sorts of shit doused a clever thought and type "no words."
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 06: 53
          +1
          I still do not understand, are you kidding or something, about "Borodino"? If not, it is easy for me to explain why the EBR data were not at all such perfection, especially in terms of cost / efficiency
          1. Crang
            Crang 6 September 2013 12: 00
            +3
            No, I'm not kidding. How did the German super-battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz perform? On the one hand, it is not bad considering the accidental death of "Hood" in general. On the other hand, almost nothing. They were more repaired and hid in the skerries than they fought. And why? Because there were all of them two pieces... And they attracted all the attention of the enemy. Even just keeping them and putting them out to sea required colossal efforts (“If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser (battleship).” That is, in reality, in 99% of naval battles and coastal operations, where battleships were to the Germans Need - they were not there. Managed by light or heavy cruisers. And what is the 2MV light cruiser - a large tin can with medium-caliber artillery. It was the cruisers that pulled 2MB, so to speak, stupidly because they were lot... Take the most powerful battleship in the world, the Yamato (at least in clear weather, it is guaranteed to hit any other battleship in the world). For all the time of its service, the ship never hit anyone with its main caliber, with which it went to the seabed. And contrast him with the same "Eagle". Hopeless drain? At first glance, so. But only at first glance. Instead of one "Yamato" you can build five or seven "Eagles" (at the same technical level) and here one against seven "Yamato" is no longer good. This time. Second - seven "Eagles" can be simultaneously present in seven different places, which is again a trump card in terms of combat effectiveness. Third, in terms of labor costs "Eagle" is approximately equal to the light / heavy (Washington) cruiser. What do they have with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons? Guns 203mm (6-8) and 152mm (9-12). All this is almost not protected in any way. Speed ​​30-35uz. The "Eagle" built at the technical level of WW2 with the same 15 thousand tons. would be 305-356mm (4) and 130-152mm (12). All this is protected by powerful battleship armor. This whole fortress can move at a speed of 20-25uz. With the advent of naval aviation and later missiles, speed ceased to be a determining factor in a naval battle. Thus, in order not to bring the idea of ​​a battleship to the point of absurdity (which the Japanese Yamato became in the process of evolution), it was necessary to build ships with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons. - not very expensive, numerous, but battle-worthy. Allow me! - you say. But such ships (light and heavy cruisers) have already been built as much as necessary! The superiority of the "battleship" of the early 20th century over such a WW2 cruiser is simply obviously and described by me. Why did I take "Borodino"? - they are just the most perfect representatives of their time. Do not build the same nonsense called 68-bis, which with a length of 210m (!) Had (go-go-go) as many as 12 (oh-fak!) 152mm guns (Aurora has the same 14) and almost without any protection. It's just that evolution has gone such a winding path, and nothing more.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 14: 00
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              No, I'm not kidding

              And I thought ... but it doesn’t matter. Since you are serious, I will answer seriously
              Quote: Krang
              How did the German super-battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz perform?

              Brilliantly proved and fully justified themselves. Tell what would happen if these battleships did not exist in nature?
              Option 1 Instead of keeping all their newest King Georgies and, equally, if not more important, aircraft carriers in Scapa Flow, in anticipation of the "imminent" launch of German LKs at sea, the British would send them to Mediterranean. The Italian supermarine would have come full skiff at the first exit - you can't run away from the Kings so easily. With a sufficient number of modern battleships and aircraft carriers, the British could block the supply of reinforcements and all supplies to Rommel and his comrades, and Italian Africa could fall much faster than in current reality.
              Option 2 - the British could form a fairly strong squadron and send it to support the Americans in the Pacific.
              One and only "Tirpitz" chained up to 3 of the newest British aircraft and aircraft carrier, not counting the light forces. The presence of Tipritsa served as a brilliant excuse in those cases when for some reason I did not want to drive convoys to the USSR through the north.
              Quote: Krang
              Even just keeping them and putting them out to sea required tremendous efforts.

              And in numbers - can you? Hint - in the fields of World War I, the English army fired approximately 2 dreadnought in the form of field artillery shells in 3 days if sclerosis is not lying to me. At a cost, of course.
              Quote: Krang
              That is, in reality - in 99% of naval battles and coastal operations, where the Germans needed battleships - they were not.

              This is in what, if not secret? :)
              Quote: Krang
              It was the cruisers that were pulled by the 2MB, stupidly because there were a lot of them.

              Why - cruisers? Here are neither submarines, nor planes, not destroyers, but cruisers? I just can't imagine how this one class of ships "pulled out" the whole war. In my opinion, each class of ships performed their own inherent tasks.
              Quote: Krang
              Take on the world's most powerful battleship Yamato

              Let's say
              Quote: Krang
              For the entire time of its service, the ship never hit anyone in the main caliber, with which it went to the seabed.

              And who is to blame? Why did the Japanese throw him into battle only when he could only proudly die without lowering the flag? The question here is actually not in the class or in the performance characteristics of the ship, but exclusively in its use. He could have done things under Midway and Guadalcanal.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 14: 00
                +2
                Quote: Krang
                And contrast it with the same "Eagle". Hopeless drain?

                Конечно.
                Quote: Krang
                Instead of one "Yamato" you can build five or seven "Eagles" (at the same technical level) and here one against seven "Yamato" will not be good.

                This seven "Eagles" will be in trouble.
                Quote: Krang
                Second - seven "Eagles" can be simultaneously present in seven different places

                Only one question - WHY? What tasks do you see for the squadron battleship in WWII? What can he do? So far I see only one thing - to shoot along the shore. At the same time, it would be advisable for someone to remove the enemy’s aviation, otherwise the EBR would not be greeted
                Quote: Krang
                Third, in terms of labor costs "Eagle" is approximately equal to the light / heavy (Washington) cruiser.

                What the fuck ?! Dear Krang, why is such a calculation so happy? !! The squadron battleship, especially in the modern version) will be MUCH MORE ROAD even of the Washington cruiser, not to mention the light one.
                Once, the British decided to build large and well-protected cruisers with 152-mm artillery. And they built the cruiser "Belfast" In fact, there were not too many differences from the same Washington-based "Kent" - all the same four main turrets (only 3 152 mm instead of 2 203 mm) almost the same suspension (82 thousand hp against 80 thousand) the same displacement (10550 tons against 10300 tons) ... But the Belfast received a fairly developed armor belt 114-mm thick, and a deck up to 76-mm, while the Kent had a uuuuuseny stripe of armor belt (but the same 114 mm) and the deck is twice as thin.
                But in terms of money, a Kent-class cruiser cost £ 1,8 million, Belfast - almost £ 2,15 million. Armor, dear Krang, is VERY expensive. And your battleship will do well with a pair of heavy cruisers. In essence, you can take the same German pocket battleship that the Spee as a basis - it cost (in comparable prices) 4 million pounds. those. more than two heavy British cruisers.
                Quote: Krang
                The "Eagle" built at the technical level of WW2 with the same 15 thousand tons. would

                It wouldn't be. Because "Eagle" came out very overloaded and it was impossible to build ships in its image and likeness. It was assumed that a normal battleship with 4 * 305-mm and a dozen 152-mm will turn out in a displacement of 16,5 thousand tons.
                Quote: Krang
                it would be 305-356mm (4) and 130-152mm (12).

                Well, let's figure it out. On the "Orel" were 305-mm / 40 old women of the Obukhov plant, model 1985. The mass of the gun is 42,8 tons. Already after the RYAV, more powerful 305-mm / 52 guns were developed, which were installed on our dreadnoughts, but they already weighed almost 50 tons and could not be considered modern by the WWII. And for our heavy cruisers "Kronstadt" modern, 305-mm / 55 guns were created, according to preliminary estimates one such gun should have weigh 72 or even 74 tons. Those. the Eagle towers would probably fit ONE such weapon. So, perhaps you will be able to put a couple of new 305-mm guns on the Eagle, but more - alas, only due to the increase in displacement.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 14: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  All this is protected by powerful, battleship armor.

                  Honestly, dear Crang, why are you too lazy to look into the reference book? The "Borodino" Vashem had amazing armor - the armor belt reached as much as 194 mm in the thickest part, but then it thinned to 165 mm and beyond. Generally speaking, this was not enough even in comparison with modern battleships ("Tsesarevich" had 250 mm, "Retvizan" - 229 mm) Should I remind you that the thickness of the armor of WWII battleships ranged from 305 to 406 mm? And it would be fine just that.
                  The fact is, dear Krang, that WWII battleships had a very HIGH armor belt, the height of the armor plates of the main belt was 4,5-5,5 meters, and the British on the Kings had even more than 7! EBR "Borodino" (as well as its peers) had only a two-meter armor belt. Which just 60 cm protruded from the water according to the project. After that, it is not surprising, really, to know that hits in the armor belt for the entire Russian-Japanese one can be counted on the fingers, you will specially aim at it - you will not fall.
                  In general, dear Crang, "Borodino" was armored somewhat better than the Washington cruisers, which is undoubtedly, but comparing it is not something that with WWII battleships - with PMV dreadnoughts, it’s not even funny.
                  But, importantly, Borodino's anti-torpedo protection was ... none. Yes, for its time the presence of an armored mine-action bulkhead looked cool (when the weight of the torpedo's explosives was 55-75 kg), but for the WWII times, when the weight of the torpedo's explosives exceeded 300 kg, it looked pathetic.
                  Quote: Krang
                  This whole fortress can move at a speed of 20-25

                  And why is he so handsome? To accompany aircraft carriers - it cannot, the cruiser to catch / intercept - cannot, leave the battleship - cannot ... What tasks can your battleship solve in the Second World War?
                  Quote: Krang
                  The superiority of the "battleship" of the early 20th century over such a WW2 cruiser is simply obvious and I have described

                  You just did not understand what was an armadillo of the beginning of the 20 century. Weak booking, scanty speed, zero PTZ ... And, most importantly, nothing to do with this. Do you want to increase the speed to at least 203-25 knots? Please refuse full contours, lengthen and thin the ship. Only then will there be no PTZ at all.
                  Remember, shipbuilders in all countries are no worse than you. And if they could not shove acceptable armor into the 10-15 thousand tons, at least against the 203-mm guns, then you should think, WHY this happened.
                  A more or less decent analogue of your battleship was developed in Germany, as a continuation of the line of "pocket battleships". Speed ​​29 knots, armament: 6 - 283 mm, 8 - 150 mm, 8 - 105 mm guns. Reservations: side - 220 mm, deck - 70-80 mm, wheelhouse - 300 mm.
                  Only here, even according to the very first estimates, all this splendor is less than in 20 thousand tons of standard displacement did not want to fit ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 14: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Krang
                    Why did I take "Borodino"? - they are just the most perfect representatives of their time.

                    They weren't nearly perfect. The heaped side limited the unsinkability when heeling. 305-mm / 40 guns fired one shot well if in 1,5-1,7 minutes (technical rate of fire) versus 40-50 seconds of modern Arsmtrong guns, so in battles with Japanese EBRs ours fired consistently one and a half to two times fewer shells, than the Japanese. The placement of medium artillery in the towers turned out to be too innovative, as a result, the reliability of the guns was lower, the rate of fire was much lower than that of the casemate 152 mm. On "Poltava" 152-mm turrets had a rate of fire of 1-1,5 rds / min, on the cruisers "Bogatyr" and EBR "Borodino" this was better, but not much. Why do you think the medium-caliber turrets COMPLETELY disappeared right after the ROE? You will not find them on "Sevastopol", nor on "Maria", nor on "Izmail", or on "Svetlana". That's why ... The low location of mine-action artillery led to rapid flooding through the gun ports. The speed was less than that of their contemporary English (respectively - and Japanese) battleships, and - up to 2 knots difference. Armor protection, quite acceptable for those times in terms of the location of the armor (but not the best!), Was frankly thin. The ships turned out to be very overloaded.
          2. Crang
            Crang 6 September 2013 12: 01
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If not, it’s easy for me to explain why the EDB data weren’t at all such perfect

            I'm afraid it will be beyond your power.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 12: 37
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              I'm afraid it will be beyond your power.

              Do not be afraid :))) I already write :)))
  20. clairessn
    clairessn 5 September 2013 22: 57
    +1
    But damn beautiful ships!
  21. pinecone
    pinecone 6 September 2013 08: 17
    0
    An interesting American project for the construction of 5 battleships of the "Montana" series.

    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm
  22. Crang
    Crang 6 September 2013 17: 01
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You just did not understand what was an armadillo of the beginning of the 20 century. Weak booking, scanty speed, zero PTZ ... And, most importantly, nothing to do with this. Do you want to increase the speed to at least 203-25 knots? Please refuse full contours, lengthen and thin the ship. Only then will there be no PTZ at all.

    I'm afraid you did not understand what I wrote. Being in the clouds of your "brilliant" thoughts, as it seems to you, you do not even bother to carefully read what the interlocutor is telling you. I wrote, I quote again:
    Instead of one Yamato, you can build five to seven Eagles (at the same technical level)
    This means with new engines, new guns, instruments, equipment, radars and torpedoes. Accordingly, all your subsequent discussions about what is not.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Weak booking

    Rave...
    What is weaker than the light cruiser of the WW2 of similar displacement? Well, let's take the "Eagle" light cruiser pr.68 "Kutuzov".
    "Eagle" - 14400t / 121,2m.
    "Kutuzov" - 16600t / 210m.
    The most basic:
    Board:
    "Орел" - 194мм/0+40мм/30+40мм/0=314mm - the middle of the side length of 60m; 145mm / 0 + 40/30 =225mm - extremities; 51 + 51 + 40 =142mm, 51 + 32 + 40 =123mm, 24 + 32 + 40 =99mm - decks in total for different areas of the ship. 203-254mm - gun mounts.
    "Kutuzov" - 100mm - board in the center, 20mm - extremities; 130mm - gun mounts, 20-50mm - deck in various areas.
    Is this a weak reservation ???? As you can see, the armadillo of the beginning of the century for protection (I haven’t listed everything yet) just makes an orderly modern postwar war cruiser even of a generation with a greater displacement.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    scanty speed

    Again, reasoning about what is not. Yes, at the beginning of the 20th century, 2x7900hp engines could be crammed into the Orla MO. So just imagine what you could have crammed into the same department in WW2? Not less than 100000-120000hp And the speed is 25-30uz.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    zero PTZ ...

    What? Is it "Eagle" that zero PTZ? Some "Mikasa" or "London" PTZ really had almost zero (represented only by a double bottom), but not "Borodintsy", (which is why I took them). The "Eagle" for example PTZ is constructively absolutely the same like "Bismarck" with "Tirpitz" - a good comparison, isn't it? And take a look at what PTZ the cruisers had. That's really really "zero".
    In general, Andrey - it would not hurt you to grow up. I understand that the topic is interesting to you, but you shouldn’t immediately rush to prove with foam at your mouth what you really don’t have.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Only one question - WHY? What tasks do you see for the squadron battleship in WWII?

    Aren't you a troll by chance? Or intentionally distort the meaning? The tasks are the same as other battleships and cruisers. Participate in all the mess.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 20: 53
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Being in the clouds of your "brilliant" thoughts, as it seems to you, you do not even bother to carefully read what the interlocutor is telling you. I wrote, I quote again:
      Instead of one Yamato, you can build five or seven Eagles (at the same technical level)

      And I explained to you in the most thorough way that your pink dream - an armadillo in 15 thousand tons at the current WWII level is IMPOSSIBLE.
      Quote: Krang
      This means with new engines, new guns, instruments, equipment, radars and torpedoes

      As for the new guns, you were given a good example - the NEW gun weighed like two old ones. And this means that the tower will weigh like two old ones. Instead of inventing pink elephants - if you were going to learn materiel, then you would know what the difference was in the masses of artillery of the times of the REV and WWII.
      Quote: Krang
      "Орел" - 194мм/0+40мм/30+40мм/0=314мм

      Yeah, yeah :))) 194 mm is the armored belt, 40 mm is the bevel of the armored deck. 234 mm. And yet, about the 80 height gauges in height, there is a place where a PTZ bulkhead is added - only 274 mm comes out. Compare this with the 320 mm side of Bismarck and its 110 mm bevels. Or with Scharnhorst, with its 350 mm side and 80 mm bevel. Kung's awesome battleship, yes.
      And all this "uberbrone" was covered as much as 2 meters of waterline, and even then not all. - 274 mm was 80 centimeters, if not less. In the Russo-Japanese War, an average of 3 shells out of every 100 that hit the battleship hit the main armor belt.
      Quote: Krang
      Is this a weak reservation ???? As you can see, the armadillo of the beginning of the century for protection (I haven’t listed everything yet) just makes an orderly modern postwar war cruiser even of a generation with a greater displacement

      If Krang read what I wrote to him, he would know that I do not argue that the EDBs are better armored. But their reservation is USELESS against the battleships. And the EDB cannot do anything against the cruisers - because it did not work out at speed.
      At the same time, WWII cruisers were often significantly superior to the EDB in the PTZ.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 September 2013 20: 54
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        Yes, at the beginning of the 20th century, 2x7900hp engines could be crammed into the Orla MO. So just imagine what you could have crammed into the same department in WW2? Not less than 100000-120000hp And the speed is 25-30uz.

        The man said, not even a shy understanding of the speed of the ships. Yes, even if he had somehow miraculously piled EU on 120 thousand horses, he would not have given any 25 - the contours and the length / width ratio would not allow. There the ratio goes like this - the speed increases approximately in proportion to the square of the power.
        But the funniest thing, Krang, is that the weight of the Borodino EDR machines is 787,2 tons, the boilers weigh 366,5 tons, and in total - 1154 tons. But, for example, the mass of the English power cruiser County (80 thousand hp) weighed 1826 tons. Can you calculate how much the weight of Borodino will increase if you put an EI from a Washington cruiser into it?
        Quote: Krang
        The "Eagle" for example PTZ is structurally absolutely the same as the "Bismarck" with the "Tirpitz" - a good comparison, isn't it?

        fool And I'm with him as a serious person ....
        PTZ Bismarck had a width of 5,4 meters. Borodino - 2 was not meters.
        Quote: Krang
        And take a look at what PTZ the cruisers had. That's really really "zero".

        The French Algerie is 5 meters away. At the same time, the WWII was precisely the PTZ - i.e. several bulkheads of varying thickness, partially filled with liquid, partially hollow. Naturally, Borodino did not have any of this
        Quote: Krang
        In general, Andrey - it would not hurt you to grow up.

        Right. And do not waste time on every ignoramus they come across.
        Quote: Krang
        The tasks are the same as other battleships and cruisers. Participate in all the mess.

        Participate in all the mess .... Kindergarten, and nothing more.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 September 2013 22: 02
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          speed increases in proportion to the square of the power.

          Cuba
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2013 00: 56
            +1
            Miles sorry, dug out. Cuba of course, thanks!
    2. Kars
      Kars 6 September 2013 20: 55
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      This means with new engines, new guns, instruments, equipment, radars and torpedoes

      and this will get a German pickpocket .. Deutschland .. at best,
  23. Mikola
    Mikola 9 September 2013 19: 23
    +1
    Hmm, kindergarten Tirpitz and Bismarck, one type of ship. And the best all the same battleships of the Iowa class, because of the fire control system and air defense. Strength without direction (vector) is weakness) zero) and here everyone is inferior to Iowa.
  24. aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 11 September 2013 16: 21
    0
    worthy article, very informative.
  25. 1969s9691g.
    1969s9691g. 20 October 2013 10: 46
    0
    read the book "war in the oceans 1939-1945" by georges blon. The war in the pacific is perfectly described, including the death of Japanese super battleships.
  26. Engineer
    Engineer 12 August 2015 21: 42
    0
    Hood - "lord of the sea", went under water in 2,5 minutes, and Bismarck fought off the entire English fleet for 1,5 hours, having received only 4 holes in the hull from almost 3 thousand British shells fired and was sunk only by the ship's crew. Yes, Hood was old, and the Bismarck was the most modern ship. But he had no equal. The American battleships that appeared at the end of the war did not show themselves in any way, therefore they cannot get the best rank, they did not deserve in battle. Musashi and Yamato did not fight with American battleships, therefore they cannot get the title of the best for the role of floating targets for aviation.
    1. Mikhail Zhukov
      Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 11: 36
      0
      So from the whole English fleet?
      Did Bismarck show himself strongly?