Military Review

Chronicles of sea battle. Cruisers off the coast of Libya

75



Prologue

September 1 The green flames of Jamahiriya flared up over Tripoli on 1969 - a group of young officers led by Muammar Gaddafi managed to overthrow King Idris and take power into their own hands. The new government of Libya has declared its readiness to embark on the socialist path of development - for the leadership of the USSR, this was a signal that a new potential ally and partner appeared in the Mediterranean region.

The only problem is that American and British military bases remained in the territory of the Libyan Arab Republic. An important oil-bearing region threatened to become the site of a bloody clash — the West began preparations for an operation to interfere in the country's internal affairs — as demanded by the former Libyan-British defense treaty. It was necessary to transfer reinforcements from the island of Crete to the British airbases Tobruk and Al-Adem and to order the commencement of an offensive operation.

The Sixth Fleet of the US Navy headed by the aircraft carrier "John F. Kennedy" moved to the scene of the incident - the situation took a serious turn.

Chronicles of sea battle. Cruisers off the coast of Libya

Sixth Fleet off the coast of Sicily, 1965 year

At this time, in the Mediterranean Sea was the 5th OPESK Naval Fleet USSR as part of four cruisers: anti-submarine missile launcher "Moscow", missile launcher "Grozny", artillery launcher "Jerzhynsky" and "M. Kutuzov ”, three large anti-submarine ships and 10 obsolete destroyers of projects 30 bis, 56 and 31 (the latter are radio reconnaissance ships). Under water, the squadron was covered by six diesel-electric submarines (missile carriers, project 651) and a multipurpose submarine of project 627A.

Soviet ships immediately dispersed - the BOD and the destroyers formed a 150-mile protective zone between the coast of Libya and Fr. Crete. Now, in order to transfer forces by air, British transport aircraft would have to fly over the ships of the Soviet Navy. The threat to get under fire naval SAMs acted soberingly - already on September 5 London declared that he would not interfere in the internal affairs of Libya.

An attempt to “project the force” with the help of the Sixth Fleet suffered a crushing fiasco — on September 6 in the Tyrrhenian Sea, the carrier-based strike group was discovered by Tu-16Р sea reconnaissance aircraft. A day later, the AUG was already moving in a tight ring of Soviet cruisers and submarines holding a “pistol at the temple” of the Sixth Fleet. After wandering along the Libyan coast at the sight of six-inch "Kutuzov" and "Dzerzhinsky" squadron of the US Navy went to the opposite course. 15 September 1969, ashamed Americans returned to the berths of the Naples naval base.

The Soviet Navy conscientiously fulfilled the task.

Missile against missiles

Not so long ago, a curious calculation appeared on one of the thematic sites of Runet - what would be the real chances of the Soviet artillery cruiser 68-bis in the event of a military clash with an American squadron?

The simple answer — deck planes will detect and sink a cruiser at a distance of 500 miles — only for Pacific theaters of the 1941-1945 period. During the Cold War, the situation changed - the Soviet fleet practiced actions to track the ships of the “likely enemy” in peacetime. In the event of an escalation of the conflict and the beginning of the war, the cruisers did not need to break through anywhere - they were initially at the line of sight, ready to open fire on the decks of aircraft carriers and escort ships of the US Navy.

The prospect of fire contact with the cruiser of the project 68-bis (Sverdlov-class) could not help but terrify the American sailors.

Soviet version. Mate in three moves

Six inches. 152 mm. - This is a two meter deep funnel where a machine gun calculation of two numbers could fit.

The guns of the Soviet cruiser hit day and night, in any conditions, in the thickest fog, storm and sandstorm. Minimum reaction time. In addition to the optical range finders, radar guidance was available — a fire control system based on the Zalp radar made it possible to automatically correct firing at bursts of fallen projectiles. The maximum firing range - 30 000 meters. The high-explosive fragmentation projectile RP-35 left the trunk section at the speed of 950 m / s - three speeds of sound! faster than any modern anti-ship missile



In total, on board the cruiser of the 68-pr Ave., 12 of such guns * was installed in four armored revolving towers MK-5. Practical rate of fire of each gun - 4-7 shots per minute.

* on "Dzerzhinsky" - six. Instead of the fodder group GK, an experimental SA-N M-2 was mounted.

Even if the “probable enemy” ships were out of the shelling sector of the feed implements, the destructive power of the main-class bow group was more than enough to turn any US Navy ship into flaming ruins.

Only the blind could miss the 300-meter hull “John F. Kennedy”. Three full-time salvo for sighting - the fourth in the "apple"!

In the case of an aircraft carrier, the situation acquired an especially gloomy tint - it was enough to “put” just one shell on the deck of aircraft technology, to cause a catastrophe - the ship flashed like a counterfeit Chinese fireworks. With a powerful explosion and ignition of tens of tons of fuel and ammunition suspended under the wings of aircraft.

This completes the work of the Soviet artillerymen - all the rest will be done by the flames of the kerosene spilled everywhere - the fire will certainly penetrate the hangar and the lower decks through the holes punched through by detonation aviation bombs. The losses will be terrible. The question of further participation in hostilities will become irrelevant - the survivors will be concerned with a completely different problem: will it be possible to save the ship?


Fire on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Enterprise" (1969 year). The reason is the spontaneous launch of the NURS caliber 127 mm.
A similar case took place on board the AB “Forrestal” (1967 year) - the rocket fell off the pylon and hit the tank in front of the attack aircraft. The fuse prevented the explosion, but one spark was enough - a fierce fire destroyed half of the air group and killed 134 of a man of the ship's personnel.

But the “Oriskani” (1966 year) suffered the silliest of all - the aircraft carrier almost died from a signal rocket, accidentally launched into the hands of a sailor.

There is no reason to doubt that an 152-mm projectile exploding on the deck of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy would have caused less damage. Six kilograms of the mighty brizant and thousands of red-hot splinters would surely bring the ship down.


The artillery armament of the 68-bis cruisers was not limited to the main caliber - there were three CM-5-1 two-gun installations with semi-automatic 100 mm caliber guns on each side of the ship - six trunks on each side, controlled by the Anchor artillery radar.

Universal artillery shells had a smaller mass and firing range (24 kilometer), but the rate of fire of each gun could reach 15-18 rds / min - it is easy to imagine what could happen to the Kennedy if such a squall of fire fell on him.



History he doesn’t say if the escort cruisers had two or three destroyers - each “56 project” or the old “30-bis” could “congratulate” the enemy with a volley of 130-mm naval guns.

The situation is paradoxical - rusty Soviet cruisers and outdated destroyers could, with one click, deprive the US Navy squadron of its main force, and then engage in battle with escort cruisers and missile destroyers on highly advantageous conditions.

There was no one to be afraid - the Americans in 1969 had neither anti-ship missiles, nor large-caliber guns, nor a torpedo weapons on surface ships.
Universal "five-inch" (127 mm) could not cause enough damage to an armored monster in a short time.


Escort cruiser USS Leahy (DLG / CG-16) 1962 of the year of construction. Was completely deprived of artillery weapons, with the exception of a pair of anti-aircraft guns

The reaction time of the US Navy aviation is incomparable with 68-bis artillery. Airplanes need to take off from a catapult, gain altitude, lie down on a combat course, and only then attack the “target”, which continually spews tons of red-hot steel from itself. It would not have happened that aircraft would die without having managed to rise from the deck of the ship. In addition, it’s not yet a fact that even the most powerful weapons that the American pilots had at that time - free-fall bombs weighing 227 and 454 kg could cause the cruiser to be critically damaged.

A certain threat is only a surprise attack from under water - but, in any case, the response time of the American submarine will be excessively long. Cruisers will die the death of the brave, but by that time all the American "tins" will be slaughtered.

One jump - and you are in ladies!

American version. Two elemental demons

... Where do these Russians climb with their backward Bolshevik technologies? They naively hope that we lack anti-ship missiles, armor and large-caliber artillery.

Ha! We have all this! The cruiser “Little Rock”, the flagship of the Sixth Fleet, follows the wake of the carrier, and was specifically sent from Gaeta to reinforce the American grouping off the coast of Libya.

This rusty junk was launched in the 1944 year, so he had armored belts, armored decks and even one tower of the main caliber - the duel "Little Rock" with the cruiser Ave. 68-bis could have become an enchanting spectacle.

But we are not going to get our hands dirty in artillery combat - too vulgar an occupation in the Era of rocket weapons. We have prepared for the Russian special "Surprise" -
Submit to the launcher two missiles "Talos"!



The USS Little Rock (CLG-4) is an old Cleveland-class cruiser that underwent a deep modernization under the Galveston project. At the end of the 1950s, both aft towers were dismantled from the cruiser - a launcher and a protected cellar were installed on the RIM-46 Talos 8 anti-aircraft missiles in exchange. Also, the bow of the ship was redesigned. Thanks to high lattice masts, massive AN / SPS-43, AN / SPS-30 airborne target radars and thumbs, AN / SPG-49 radar fire control systems acquired their whimsical memorable silhouette - the ship seemed to have disappeared from the screen of the science fiction film 60 -y's


USS Little Rock (CL / CLG / CG-4), Mediterranean, 1974 Year

Initially, the Yankees did not plan any surprises. The Galveston project assumed the transformation of three obsolete cruisers into an air defense platform — ship groups needed reliable air cover. The newest at that time, the maritime SAM "Talos" promised solid opportunities - the possibility of hitting air targets at a distance of 180 km.

The unique characteristics of “Talos” are obtained at an expensive price - the complex turned out to be HUGE. A huge cellar for the preparation of rockets, more like a factory floor, bulky radar, a whole hall with tube computers, numerous auxiliary systems, power equipment, cooling and ventilation systems. But the main thing - the rockets themselves. Monstrous 11-meter "logs" of mass 3,5 tons (with booster accelerator).
But even without an accelerator, the size of the rocket shook the imagination: the mass - 1542 kg! - as a shell of the battleship "Yamato" (of course, taking into account the design, cross-sectional area and mechanical strength of the rocket). There was a special version of the "Talos" in the nuclear version - such a rocket was supposed to "clear" the coast before the landing in the Third World War.



But the main thing - during the operation it turned out that the Talos could be used not only against air targets - like any air defense system, it had a mode of shooting at surface objects! The anti-aircraft missile’s GOS doesn’t matter what signal is reflected - from an airplane’s wing or from an enemy ship’s superstructure, just disconnect the proximity fuze — and RIM-8 Talos turns into a powerful supersonic anti-ship missile with a 136 kg warhead RIM-8H with pointing to a source of radar radiation. Such "tricks" US Navy cruisers will fire at the position of the Vietnamese radar and air defense missile system).

If you do not take into account the anti-radar modification of the RIM-8H, then the dual-use Talos missile was not a full-fledged anti-ship system - the firing range is too small. Even the largest ships with high superstructures could be fired at SAMs at a distance of a maximum of a couple of tens of kilometers - the AN / SPG-49 radar does not know how to “look” over the horizon, and the Talos rocket turns into a useless piece of metal. .




Talos Nearly Destroyed Target Destroyer

Just a couple of tens of kilometers ... But this is more than enough to strike at Soviet ships approaching the US Navy carrier group! There, off the coast of Libya, in the fall of 1969, the Little Rock could easily have been hit by the cruiser 68-bis with the Talos missile.

As shown by computer simulations, the 1,5-ton blank, rushing from the sky at speed 2,5M, punches, like a foil, 50-mm armored formwork of the Kutuzov cruiser and the underlying 15-mm steel lining.

The core warhead is likely to collapse when it hits the armor, but it will be replaced by 300 liters of rocket fuel - a volumetric explosion will occur in the affected compartment, accompanied by the rapid spread of the fuel aerosol cloud and fragments at a speed of 2 km / s! The effect of hitting the Talos is similar to hitting a heavy explosive incendiary bomb in a cruiser.

Meanwhile, “Little Rock” will recharge its PU and in a minute will deliver a new blow. The Talos rocket, in comparison with an artillery projectile, is exceptionally accurate - it will most likely hit the target from the very first shot. In such conditions, the Soviet squadron becomes doomed ...

Epilogue. Few will survive in that battle

In the heated debate about the "living dead" and "ritual sacrifices" in the confrontation of the two largest fleets that have ever plied the oceans, the final point was not put.
Proponents of the Reds claim that the US Navy only had 8 cruisers with the Talos complex — too few to cover all US Navy squadrons across the globe. In addition, they appeared in the 1960-64 period, i.e. on the 10-15 years later, the 68-bis cruisers - in fact, this is a technique from different eras that happened by mistake due to a misunderstanding on the battlefield. By the end of 60, the role of the main strike force of the USSR Navy had already passed to missile cruisers and nuclear submarines.

Supporters of the "blue" reasonably note that another maritime air defense system could be used as a Talos, although with a much smaller effect, for example, the medium and short range Terrier and Tartar complexes - the number of American ships equipped with these air defense systems was calculated many dozens. However, the air defense missile system was not unusual, and the Soviet cruisers and destroyers ...


Large anti-submarine ship project 61

The “Reds” exemplify the fact that the hull of the 68-bis cruiser consisted of 23 autonomous waterproof compartments - even a few hits of the Talos and the severe damage caused to them from cabin rooms, superstructures and parts of the engine room did not guarantee that the cruiser would cease fire (loss of radars not terrible - each tower has its own set of fire control devices). In the history there are examples when Russian sailors fired until the ship was hidden under water.

"Blue" claim that the pursuit of the American group was not easy - American destroyers maneuvered dangerously and constantly cut a course for Soviet ships, trying to push them away from the aircraft carrier. The “Reds” talk about the excellent handling and 32 hub speed of the 68-bis cruiser.

Was it a justified decision to send old artillery cruisers to intercept AUG? The argument can be endless ...

Personal author's point of view is as follows: when preventively (or at least simultaneously) receiving a signal about the beginning of the war, the artillery cruisers of the USSR Navy had a big chance to put a volley across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and possibly damage / destroy several smaller escort ships.
The rate of fire of the guns is too high, and the carrier carrier’s vulnerability is too high.

And then, the cruiser will die the death of the brave ...

We had no other way then. 60s stood in the courtyard, the USSR Navy had just entered the World Ocean. He was still too weak and primitive compared to the powerful US Navy, which has 10-fold budget and experience of conducting a real naval war in the vast oceans.
And, nevertheless, our fleet held on well! That year, off the coast of Libya, the Soviet sailors were able to competently demonstrate their intentions and thus achieve a convincing bloodless victory.

As for the effectiveness of the use of artillery in modern naval combat, its advantage over rocket weapons becomes apparent only when providing fire support and shelling the coast.







Based on:
http://alerozin.narod.ru
http://www.okieboat.com
http://alternathistory.org.ua
http://www.hazegray.org
http://www.wikipedia.org
http://navsource.org
Author:
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 17 October 2013 09: 51
    20
    Interestingly, in any case, it is written interestingly!
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 17 October 2013 10: 26
      +8
      Quote: kapitan281271
      anyway it’s written interestingly!

      I agree with you, writes dear OLEG exciting! I want to consider a little more in detail the scenario proposed by the author of the struggle of an artillery cruiser with an aircraft carrier. Suppose that such a situation arose and the cruiser of the USSR Navy, which was following the AUG of the US Navy in a parallel course next door, discharged its main caliber on the deck of the United States aircraft carrier that we hated? We are pleased to assume that after some torment he sank with a couple of destroyers escorting URA, URA, URA !!! It will be a short-term victory in tactical terms! One aircraft carrier will be sunk, but the United States has more than a dozen! Then everything will be different.
      US Navy AUG will start tracking our cruisers and destroyers at long range and destroying them with aircraft! I am now trying to develop the topic proposed by the respected author, since the conversation has turned up again for aircraft carriers and I ask the respected members of the forum not to start waving a nuclear club with shouts "Yes if, what, yes, we are their atomic bomb!" I understand everything perfectly, but let's argue precisely on the topic proposed by the author about the confrontation between cruisers with the main caliber and aircraft carriers with their planes !!!
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 17 October 2013 10: 38
        10
        Quote: Arberes
        We are pleased to assume that after some torment he sank with a couple of destroyers escorting URA, URA, URA !!! It will be a short-term victory in tactical terms! One aircraft carrier will be sunk, but the United States has more than a dozen! Then everything will be different.

        Victory in local operation achieved

        Next is a truce. Or the Third World War, where AUGs are of little importance. There will be a tank battle in Europe - then geography will intervene: a 6000-kilometer anti-tank moat with salt water will face the opponents. Truce.

        If the leadership of the USSR and the USA finally demolishes the roof, it will be exchanged with nuclear strikes. So that is all. Then the fourth world - with stones and sticks
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 17 October 2013 10: 52
          +2
          Quote: Magellan
          Victory in local operation achieved

          I can offer a local operation exactly the opposite. AUG USA goes to the coast of FRANCE or ITALY and decides for the first strike on our cruiser, because our ship is unlikely to violate the territorial waters of NATO countries? I personally will not envy our cruiser without air cover!
          Now the victory in local conflict is achieved by the Americans.
          Well, then a truce ???
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 17 October 2013 11: 38
            13
            Quote: Arberes
            AUG USA goes to the coast of FRANCE or ITALY and decides for the first strike on our cruiser, because our ship is unlikely to violate the territorial waters of NATO countries?

            Firstly, our squadron comes close to the American, and secondly, territorial waters - it is only 12 miles from the coast. I do not think that the sixth fleet could get ashore and run away. wink
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 17 October 2013 11: 57
              +3
              Quote: Vladimirets

              Firstly, our squadron comes close to the American, and secondly, territorial waters - it is only 12 miles from the coast. I do not think that the sixth fleet could get ashore and run away.

              Yes, not quite a good example on my part. hi
              Then we will go the other way, what would I do on the site of Amer, to drown our cruiser with minimal losses for myself? The AUG group leaves the zone of the alleged conflict and is in full swing into the vast oceans with a tail from our ships. Another US Navy compound is being put forward for a meeting, the supplies of fuel, fresh water and provisions on our ships are coming to an end, and I didn’t hear that the Soviet Navy would have dared to approach the US shores and they would have to return leaving one of their ships for tracking ? And then the blow will be struck!
              How do you like that?
              1. Vladimirets
                Vladimirets 17 October 2013 12: 01
                14
                Quote: Arberes
                How do you like that?

                Shouts of "Bravo!" good

                Anecdote in the topic:
                One hunter asks another:
                “What will you do if you meet a wolf in the steppe?”
                - I’ll shoot him from a gun.
                - And if it gives a misfire?
                “I'll stab him with a knife.”
                - And if the knife breaks?
                - Then I’ll climb a tree.
                “But there are no trees in the steppe!”
                - Listen, are you friend to me, to me or to the wolf?
                wink
                1. Arberes
                  Arberes 17 October 2013 12: 33
                  +5
                  Quote: Vladimirets
                  Listen, are you friend to me, to me or to the wolf?

                  Well of course you !!! Not Amer! I just can not indifferently look at the humiliation of aircraft carriers!
                  Well, thanks for the joke. I, in turn, will thank you with poems.
                  The last pier.

                  Like a dark ship at the pier
                  Turned gray as a lived century.
                  Loneliness-night paid me
                  For the sins of my past years!

                  To scream, but who will hear
                  My black water is longing!
                  Rain drops letters to me
                  I will tear them to the wind!

                  But I lived a cheerful carelessness
                  How warm I breathed in the sun!
                  And the moments seemed forever
                  Heart beat easily with joy!

                  Now I saw also komenty ANDREY from Chelyabinsk and Vadivaka, With great pleasure I welcome you, dear. These verses and YOU!
                  drinks
                  OVERLOOK THE AMATEUR !!! hi
              2. Vadivak
                Vadivak 17 October 2013 12: 10
                +7
                Quote: Arberes
                would you drown our cruiser with minimal casualties?


                I think this is tantamount to attacking the USSR and not getting Lyuli in return smile
              3. Orik
                Orik 17 October 2013 15: 01
                +4
                The goal of the Libyan operation was again achieved, the Americans went to their shores, and then again everything came down to a nuclear club if they attack our ship.
      2. anip
        anip 17 October 2013 10: 46
        +8
        Correctly or incorrectly, the author writes about the confrontation between aircraft carriers and artillery cruisers, but the fact remains: the United States and England have overshadowed the outdated Soviet cruisers. Why's that?
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 12: 00
        +7
        Quote: Arberes
        Then everything will be different.
        AUG US Navy will begin to track our long-range cruisers and destroyers and destroy them with the help of aviation!

        There is something else - escorting the AUG by cruisers only makes sense in peacetime. Then the artillery ships have the opportunity to get close to the AB at 70-90 KBT and go side by side. Well, if the international situation escalates, the cruiser approaches 60, 40 kbt and even closer. And the United States will not do anything here - the sea is common. If ordered, the cruiser strikes. If the Americans were the first to receive an order to start a war, then, unfortunately, they may not have time to strike back.
        Well, when the war has already begun - naturally, no one will be chasing cruisers for AB.
        Quote: Arberes
        and I ask the respected members of the forum not to start waving a nuclear club with shouts "Yes if, yes, we are their atomic bomb!"

        But in this particular case, it’s probably worth it to operate with atomic weapons - because if the order is given (at least the USSR, at least the USA) then there will be no small warfare with conventional weapons, but there will be a universal nuclear missile. Therefore, the alternative considered the issue of nuclear strikes by both sides
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 17 October 2013 12: 40
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          There is something else - escorting the AUG by cruisers only makes sense in peacetime. Then the artillery ships have the opportunity to get close to the AB at 70-90 kbt and go to it side by side. Well, if the international situation escalates, the cruiser is approaching 60, 40 kbt and even closer. And the United States will not do anything here - the sea is common. If ordered, the cruiser strikes.

          And you and Oleg somehow forget that in such cases, the A-6 link with bombs, an RTR plane, a tanker always hangs in the air. Americans are not rams to act relaxed in a possible crisis. In addition, guard ships are located next to our ships ready to open fire from artillery and TA. The first salvo to reach even 40 kb. (7,5 km.) It’s practically not realistic, at best with a third salvo, but will there be an opportunity to make a third salvo?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 12: 53
            +7
            Quote: Nayhas
            And you and Oleg somehow forget that in such cases the A-6 link with bombs, an RTR plane, a tanker always hangs in the air.

            According to those who actually did this patrol, no, not always. Yes, you yourself imagine what it means to keep as many aircraft in the air around the clock at least a few days.
            Quote: Nayhas
            In addition, guard ships are located next to our ships ready to open fire from artillery and TA.

            Naturally.
            Quote: Nayhas
            The first salvo to get hit even on 40 kb. (7,5 km.) It’s practically not realistic, at best with a third salvo, but will it be possible to make a third salvo?

            Why not? What should get in the way? Accept the terms you voiced as effective for the Americans. If our cruiser hits from the third salvo, so their escort ships will also hit from the third salvo. Note also that the cruiser does not act against the AUG alone, but in the company of at least several destroyers, which have 130-mm artillery and torpedoes on the escort ships. And that most US escorts have only 127mm artillery, which is generally incapable of inflicting decisive damage on a cruiser weighing 15 tons. And that anti-ship torpedoes were not installed on the US escort (starting with Kunz).
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 17 October 2013 13: 18
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes, you yourself imagine what it means to keep as many aircraft in the air around the clock at least a few days.

              And what is the way out for the Americans when the enemy ships are at their side? Yes, and "for several days" this is not the case, an aircraft carrier only needs to be at a distance exceeding the firing range of the enemy's main caliber guns, for its aviation 40 km. not distance.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Why not? What should be in the way?

              A turn of the main gun’s cannons toward American ships will be instantly detected by a reconnaissance aircraft from an aircraft carrier, orders will be immediately issued to interfere with the aircraft, change course / speed, take off attack aircraft in high alert, combat alert to all aircraft carrier commands, guard ships, and at the first salvo our cruisers will be attacked by aircraft carrier attack aircraft, there can be no talk of targeted shooting in this case.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 15: 31
                +5
                Quote: Nayhas
                And what is the Americans' solution when the enemy’s ships are nearby?

                But no. Unless - to go to the tervody, where Soviet ships are prohibited from entering.
                Quote: Nayhas
                Yes, and "for several days" this is not the case, an aircraft carrier only needs to be at a distance exceeding the firing range of the enemy's main caliber guns, for its aviation 40 km. not distance.

                An aircraft carrier cannot do this. The ocean is nobody's, and Soviet ships have every right to be anywhere in it, including 4-5 km from the American aircraft carrier. It is impossible to forbid it to them. You cannot run away from them either - the speed is not the same.
                Quote: Nayhas
                A turn of the main gun’s cannons toward American ships will be instantly detected by a reconnaissance aircraft from an aircraft carrier, orders will be immediately issued to interfere, change course / speed, take-off attack aircraft on high alert, combat alert to all aircraft carrier commands,

                But none of this will succeed, since the turn of the tower on the 90 hail takes about 13 seconds (it is possible to give out data for firing and loading the guns before), but in order to raise at least two or three dozen aircraft even from years of WWII required at least 20 minutes.
                But even an immediately taking off plane still cannot attack - it needs to gain altitude, make a call ... And this despite the fact that to attack a formation consisting of several ships, it will take more than one and not five aircraft (according to today's standards, for a successful attack 4- 5 warships require at least 25 aircraft in any way) And despite the fact that A-6 bombs are not able to instantly destroy the cruiser.
                Quote: Nayhas
                an order will be given immediately to interfere,

                Are you going to take the shells away? Oh well:)))
                Quote: Nayhas
                in this case, there can be no talk of any targeted shooting.

                It is unlikely that anyone will dispute the fact that recently I have been on this site one of the most active (if not the most active) supporter of aircraft carriers. But even I’ll tell you all the same - under such conditions, there is no question of any planes. IF the Americans get the order first, IF they raise an air group in front of the cruiser, IF our ships do not consider this a threat ... then it can be.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 17 October 2013 17: 25
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But even an airplane immediately taking off cannot yet attack - it needs to gain altitude, make a call ...

                  You are again using a situation where attack aircraft are not in the air. There were three A-4C attack squadrons on Kennedy, if our fleet will keep a distance of 5 km, then one squadron will hang constantly in the air, and another will be on the deck with suspended weapons in high alert, plus there will be a constantly RA scout in the air -5C and jammer-EA-1F Skyraider. Constantly keep a distance of 5 km. it will be impossible, because the guard ships will interfere with this passing in intersecting courses, causing them to slow down and maneuver.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Are you going to take the shells away? Oh well:)))

                  Why shells? Radar "Zalp" which is part of the artillery fire control system "Molniya ATs-68-bis". On account of its importance, "The artillery radar" Zalp "was used for the first time in the PUS system, which with high accuracy ensured the measurement of not only the range and heading angle of the target, but also the deviations of the points of fall of the shells from the target in bursts."
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2013 08: 03
                    +4
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    You are again using a situation where attack aircraft are not in the air. There were three A-4C attack squadrons at Kennedy, if our fleet will keep 5 km distance, then one squadron will hang constantly in the air

                    Yes it will not. An airplane is not a balloon; in order for it to fly, it needs a bunch of all kinds of preparation — preflight, afterflight after each flight, afterflight at the end of a flight day and after a certain number of flight hours. At the same time, an 1 flight hour requires from 20 to 50 man-hours of maintenance.
                    Therefore, the normative coefficient of combat tension (i.e., the number of sorties per day for one aircraft) on aircraft carriers is two. In reality, it was even lower, reaching 1,5 in the Iraq war. But let's take two, all in all - each squadron makes 2 sorties per day, i.e. three squadrons on AB ensure that one squadron stays in the air for 12-18 hours, no more.
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    Why shells? Radar "Zalp"

                    At a distance of 40-60 kbt radar is not too necessary
        2. old man54
          old man54 18 October 2013 03: 57
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Then the artillery ships have the opportunity to get close to the AB at 70-90 KBT and go side by side.

          I agree, + \ -! good
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, if the international situation escalates, the cruiser approaches 60, 40 kbt and even closer. And the United States will not do anything here - the sea is common.

          and here crap, I'm sorry! How can they do nothing? Do you know the reality of how it was then at sea? Like at night, at the PUF, they insidiously replaced the AB with a heavy tanker, which on those radars it was impossible to distinguish from each other, how stupidly they were not allowed to approach closer to the warrant in general and to the SAW with their destroyers, their board! They went almost to taren, no worse than us, because understand why our navy is clinging to them! So ... not everything is so ugly and smooth, Andrey, as you say.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2013 08: 04
            +2
            Quote: old man54
            and here crap, I'm sorry! How can they do nothing? Do you know the reality of how it was then at sea?

            Only from the stories. And it was said that escort sometimes went on direct fire guns.
      4. Civil
        Civil 18 October 2013 06: 35
        0
        Gaddafi turned out to be a cunning runner nose, tried to sit on all possible chairs
      5. Jack7691
        Jack7691 3 January 2014 14: 02
        -1
        Friend, why do you have a red flag? Urgently change to star-striped!
        And it turns out like in a joke: either put on your underpants or take off your cross.
    2. Siberian German
      Siberian German 17 October 2013 14: 18
      0
      and the most important thing is that if we are given a task and there is a will of leadership then peace in the whole world will remain
  2. gispanec
    gispanec 17 October 2013 10: 01
    +1
    The author Oleg will always have aircraft carriers "nonsense" "thrown money", etc.
    quote "The author's personal point of view is as follows: with a preventive (or at least simultaneous) receipt of a signal about the beginning of a war, artillery cruisers of the USSR Navy had a great chance to lay a volley across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and, possibly, damage / destroy several smaller escort ships.
    The rate of fire of the guns is too high, and the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier is too high. "

    even an art cruiser is cooler than an aircraft carrier .... cheaper + guaranteed to be the first to shoot)) ..... recently Oleg Mig31 called the rubbish of history that it is time to dispose of .... here Oleg ... what do you want to prove to us? .... or explain ..... well, I don’t understand
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 17 October 2013 10: 18
      +4
      Quote: gispanec
      even art cruiser cooler aircraft carrier ....


      And read how interesting he describes the installation of Talos on artillery junk (cruiser)

      Quote: Author ...
      This rusty junk was launched in 1944, so it retained armored belts, armored decks and even one main-caliber tower -

      But we are not going to get our hands dirty in artillery combat - too vulgar an occupation in the Era of rocket weapons. We have prepared for the Russian special "Surprise" -
      Submit to the launcher two missiles "Talos"!


      This is no longer just an artillery ship. This is an armored missile carrier. IMHO of course
      1. Santa Fe
        17 October 2013 21: 34
        +1
        Quote: Vadivak
        This is an armored missile carrier. IMHO of course

        The armored missile carrier is the Albany freak. He was amputated all the towers, both main and universal caliber - instead of 4 air defense systems - 2 Talos and 2 Tartarus. Three such freaks were converted from heavy cruisers of the Second World class "Baltimore"



        Vadim, recently I was hooked by such an idea - the body of the old Bvltimore with 152 mm armor belt, and the new filling: 150-200 UVP, like on the Ticonderoga + 2 155 mm guns like on the Zamvolta. Luxurious helipad aft, a couple of Dirks / Phalanxes. a universal ship for local wars, not afraid of light anti-ship missiles, terrorist boats and mortar shelling of forward bases (a frequent fun in the Middle East). in terms of striking power, it surpasses any Burke 2 times + six-inch, also not a joke

        Baltimore There was a beast!
  3. Stiletto
    Stiletto 17 October 2013 10: 04
    +7
    "There are examples in history when Russian sailors fired until the ship was hidden under water" - that's exactly this, and not comparative penisometry on the topic of who is bigger and thicker, really rules in a sea battle!
  4. 3935333
    3935333 17 October 2013 10: 31
    +1
    since the ship "Eagle" our fleet is the pride of the country! our fleet (especially underwater) is a tool to aim if you need HORROR at any country on this planet
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 17 October 2013 11: 45
      +7
      Well, I would write more modestly. Yes, our fleet showed itself perfectly in the Russian-Turkish wars and with the brilliant admiral Ushakov even against the French. But ... remember Tsushima, who threw back the Russian Empire with one of the most powerful naval powers down. Then the First World War. In fact, the fleet has not recovered. The Japanese fleet was on the side of the Entente. Then the Second World War. Again, all the large surface German ships were drowned by the British, and the Japanese by the Americans. Even the convoys vital to us were escorted by English sailors.

      Sailors of transport escort vessels - generally the deepest bow - to go on a polar night, in stormy conditions (to reduce the effectiveness of German aviation), ice freezes in tons, because of rolling, you can eat dry rations without hot food and under the constant threat of attacks by submarines is the greatest feat.
  5. Kars
    Kars 17 October 2013 11: 15
    +7
    The core warhead is likely to collapse on impact with armor, but it will be replaced by 300 liters of rocket fuel - a volume explosion will occur in the affected compartment, accompanied by the rapid spread of a cloud of fuel aerosol and fragments at a speed of 2 km / s



    I disagree with the version of the volumetric explosion. Where does the oxygen come from in the air volume of the affected compartment? Pazhar, the combustion agrees, but the volumetric explosion - for it, the fuel-air mixture must have certain proportions, and even time.
    PS This version is not of the author here, but with Alt history.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 11: 53
      +2
      Quote: Kars
      I disagree with the volume explosion version

      On the one hand, it’s really strange, but on the other, the decent destruction of an escort destroyer after a Talos missile hits it is clearly visible in the photo. Something exploded. Probably some part of the fuel that had enough air?
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 October 2013 11: 57
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The decent destruction of an escort destroyer after the Talos rocket hit it is clearly visible in the photo. Something exploded.


        Or maybe they were still fighting? And not with an inert part of the explosive that exploded. Although, honestly, I can’t determine from such photos there was an explosion there, or is it all kinetic energy. All the same, a minimum of 1200 kg flew, and at a speed of at least 700 m / s.
        1. postman
          postman 17 October 2013 22: 47
          0
          Quote: Kars
          And not with an inert and part of the explosive exploded

          The core part is fiction. Where is she from?
          Diving ram with a cone, there is a semi-active radar homing head
          high-explosive fragmentation - 136 kg of remote detonation


          "Four antennas located at the head of the Talos ensured the missile rapprochement with the target at a sufficient distance to trigger the warhead."

          Quote: Kars
          but a voluminous explosion - for him, the fuel-air mixture must have certain proportions, and even time.

          1. The exhaust stream of the remote control expands with the formation of aerosols / remote control works
          2. even on the launch vehicle there is fuel residues (the so-called guarantee reserve - up to 1-2% of the filling mass), when they merge through the drainage holes from the tanks, form an aerosol cloud / and then the destruction of the hull, tanks, with the TNA running, is chaotic ( relatively) the movement of the whole garbage h / s partitions.
          3. When a liquid jet engine is operating, fuel enters the combustion chamber in portions (which are determined by the rotor speed of the turbopump unit), which can create some "layered" aerosol inhomogeneity.
          4.Ammunition "daisy cutter" (Vietnam, used to calculate the Jungle) - The external carrier is destroyed, releasing aerosol into the air, which mixes with the oxygen contained in the air, forming a combustible mixture. The internal charge ignites the fuel throughout the volume — a ball with a diameter of 30–50 meters, in the entire volume of which a pressure of 4–5 atmospheres suddenly appears. Strictly speaking, no detonation, that is, an explosion as such, occurs - the fuel simply burns out. But it burns very quickly and almost simultaneously throughout the volume.



          initialization:

          result:
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 October 2013 22: 58
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            The core of the invention

            Rod is a type of high explosive fragmentation warhead.
            Quote: Postman
            form an aerosol cloud / and here the destruction of the hull, tanks, with the TNA running, the chaotic (relatively) movement of the whole garbage through the septum.

            So what? How much fuel is converted to an air-fuel mixture of the right concentration?
            Quote: Postman
            initialization:

            Here is the one and the whole headline--
            Quote: Kars
            . Where does so much oxygen come from in the air volume of the affected compartment?

            In the photo of the use of the daisy mower (if this is it), I do not see any restrictions on the access of oxygen from the oxygen oxidizer.

            Explosions of the fuel-air mixture for ships are not uncommon - for example, an English aircraft carrier exploded in a port like that, but certain conditions are needed for this, and a missile hit will not.
            1. postman
              postman 18 October 2013 00: 17
              0
              Quote: Kars

              Rod is a type of high explosive fragmentation warhead.

              I thought here about the kinetics of general conversation (the essence of the disc)
              Quote: Kars
              So what? How much fuel is converted to an air-fuel mixture of the right concentration?

              10 liters I’ll destroy (probably) a house in 150sq.m, and this is to the professor and his opponents who can’t set fire to undermine Israeli armored cars
              carry out EXCREMENT (experiment of course): now it’s autumn, cut dry branches in your garden (since you have forgotten 100 or 1000 hectares), fold it.
              A liter of gasoline (you can AI-92), sprinkle plentifully, wait a bit (match and teal time), try to set it on fire (I strongly recommend being behind the OMON or using a special suit)
              And here not:
              -1 liter, and more
              -cubatur of internal compartments
              chaotic movement
              / for reference - an aerosol cloud, it is formed MORE at high altitudes, where IZHE atmospheric pressure (and there is little oxygen in AAA)
              Quote: Kars
              Here is the one and the whole headline--

              -working liquid propellant rocket engine
              - "sparks" when overcoming obstacles
              -Kinetic energy of Talos, which turned into heating (small-sized), when overcoming obstacles
              - "climax" of electrical equipment = short circuit in conductive boards
              - much more

              Quote: Kars
              I do not see any restrictions on the access of oxygen from the oxygen oxidizer.

              And where do you see him on the surface ship?
              What Talos cut into a submarine?
              / try to limit the access of atmospheric oxygen in your room where you sleep .... well, maybe in the morning you will feel a headache, although it is unlikely /
              Quote: Kars
              A rocket hit will not do this.

              why not? Don’t forget the current, all missiles (adversaries) are now turbojet engines, but on ours (LRE) it still gives
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 October 2013 10: 32
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                I thought here about the kinetics of general conversation (the essence of the disc)

                The question on it is a blank - then the type of warhead is not canceled.
                Quote: Postman
                10 liters I’ll destroy (probably) a house in 150sq.m,

                you can knock out the glass - the doors. The supporting structures will not suffer.
                Quote: Postman
                And here not:
                -1 liter, and more
                -cubatur of internal compartments

                And how much oxygen is there in this cubic meter?
                Will there be time for mixing? In fact, the voluminous-mating ammunition has a delay.
                Quote: Postman
                -working liquid propellant rocket engine
                Since it is these facts that will not give the effect of a voluminous explosion, there will be a fire.
                Quote: Postman
                And where do you see him on the surface ship?

                In limited scope of constructions. I do not say that there is no air, I say that there is little of it.
                Quote: Postman
                c) now

                It is specifically about Talos.

                Here, by the way, one type talked about the anti-bunker bomb with a warhead of the volumetric-dithing type, I consulted with you about it.
                1. postman
                  postman 18 October 2013 12: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  you can knock out the glass - the doors. The supporting structures will not suffer.

                  You are mistaken
                  1960, US experiments: when a bomb containing 10 gallons (32-33 L) ethylene oxide, a cloud of air-fuel mixture was formed with a radius of 7,5-8,5 m, a height of 3 m. After 125 ms the cloud was blown up by several detonators. The resulting shock wave had a front overpressure 2,1 million Pa. For comparison - to create such pressure at a distance of 8 m from the TNT charge requires about 200-250 kg of TNT
                  For destruction by the shock wave of the aircraft, a pressure of 70-90 thousand Pa is required
                  33 liters. Divided by 3, roughly divided the result of the blasting 33 liters per 4 = the house will be destroyed.
                  ! with proper use
                  Quote: Kars
                  Since it is these facts that will not give the effect of a voluminous explosion, there will be a fire.

                  volumetric explosion ammunition: When a cloud of air-fuel mixture is blown up, the initial pressure in the explosion epicenter is incomparably lower (with a volume explosion, in fact, not detonation occurs, but a quick burning of the mixture), and the speed of the shock wave is less than during the explosion of a TNT charge similar in mass.
                  MAIN STAY AT 100-200milliS (360m / s (speed of meeting) x 0,1s = less than 36 m
                  You confuse the fuel will not be SPILLED and set on fire, the fuel randomly disperses in volume in the form of microspheres, weigh the fuel in the air.
                  Of course, initialization may not occur, although this probability is negligible
                  Quote: Kars
                  In limited scope of constructions. I do not say that there is no air, I say that there is little of it.


                  if I'm not mistaken kerosene stoichiometry 1:14 or 1:17
                  WHAT IS 300L OF FUEL? , this is 0,3 cubic meters
                  WHAT IS THE VOLUME, Volumes of the interior of the ship?
                  10 cubic meters + outside air (this is not pl)
                  10 cubic meters = 10 liters
                  10 liters and 000 liters = 300: 100 = 3: 33 = ENOUGH


                  Quote: Kars
                  about the anti-bunker bomb with a warhead of the volumetric-dithing type, I consulted with you about it.

                  - for a volume explosion, a large free volume and free oxygen are required
                  (and where (in the thickness) of the soil is oxygen taken?)
                  The phenomenon of volumetric explosion is impossible in airless space, in water, in the ground.
                  -volume explosion ammunition have only aboutdean damaging factor - shock wave. There is no fragmentation and cumulative effect on the target.
                  - there is no brisance (the ability to crush, destroy the barrier), the cloud of the air-fuel mixture is very low., because here there is still an explosion of the type "burning", while in very many cases an explosion of the type "detonation" is required.
                  Roughly speaking, there will be a "push" (push the bunker dug into the ground), not its destruction.

                  MOP (GBU-57 / B) - a giant "bucket with dynamite»
                  length 6,2 m and diameter 80 cm, weight 13600 kg
                  such a ratio of length and diameter allows punching 60 meters of reinforced concrete (5000 psi) or up to 8 meters of heavy-duty reinforced concrete
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 October 2013 12: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    You are mistaken

                    Do not go to the grandmother - the bearing walls will remain.
                    Quote: Postman
                    33 liters. Divided by 3, roughly divided the result of the blasting 33 liters per 4 = the house will be destroyed.
                    ! with proper use

                    How can this aerosol be applied differently?
                    Quote: Postman
                    WHAT IS 300L OF FUEL? , this is 0,3 cubic meters
                    WHAT IS THE VOLUME, Volumes of the interior of the ship?

                    You’ll figure out which compartment you’ll get into - there may also be a 3 by 2 meter compartment. It’s time.
                    Quote: Postman
                    : when a bomb fires,

                    That's the joke that you cannot repeat this actuation in artisanal conditions, and a torn rocket tank will also not repeat this.

                    Quote: Postman
                    10 liters and 000 liters = 300: 100 = 3: 33 = ENOUGH

                    And is it really that the concentration and ratios are 100% oxygen in the air?
                    Quote: Postman
                    kerosene stoichiometry

                    For internal combustion engines with spark ignition, an air / fuel ratio of 14,7: 1 (mass parts) is considered stoichiometric
                    If I honestly don’t remember. Mass parts is a liter per liter? Gram per gram?
                    1. postman
                      postman 18 October 2013 16: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Do not go to the grandmother - the bearing walls will remain.

                      no
                      1.
                      Quote: Postman
                      had by front overpressure 2,1 million Pa.
                      / 1 Pa = 1 Nm (-2).
                      let it be 6 (!) times less: 0 ltr not 33ltr, KEROSIN is not MARR
                      = ID (P) = 350 Pa (Nm (-000))
                      For a wall of 6x3 m = 18m.sq., IT = 6 N (630 kgs)
                      2.RSN 58-86 Guidelines for the design of the outer walls of panel residential buildings for the northern building and climatic zone and the requirements of SNiP II -6-74, SNiP 2.01.07-85. Loads and Impacts
                      Calculation for the software "Parad-ES" (TsNIIEPzhilishcha) and IT-K-4V (LenZNIIEP) - for wind effects.
                      The estimated horizontal wall load from the wind, according to PN-77 / B-02011 (YTONG standard)
                      http://ostroykevse.ru/Krisha/k8.png
                      PEAK WIND LOAD, and it acts OUTSIDE (on the cube, frame), and HERE FROM INSIDE

                      Quote: Kars
                      That's the joke that you cannot repeat this actuation in artisanal conditions, and a torn rocket tank will also not repeat this.

                      I can, for sure.
                      Spontaneous aerosol formation is possible during condensation, for example, evaporation and condensation from supersaturated vapors during cooling or during a chemical reaction. As a result of cooling during adiabatic expansion of the cloud or when wet air comes into contact with a cold surface, fog forms.
                      The mere contact of AlCl3 with moist air causes a reaction.
                      AlCl3 + H2O = Al (OH) 3,as a result of which aerosol is also formed.

                      The rocket always happens this way (see the launches of the launch vehicle) - AEROSOL CLOUD all TIME (what is mistaken for a UFO)

                      Quote: Kars
                      And is it really that the concentration and ratios are 100% oxygen in the air?

                      Stoichiometric coefficient FOR AIR (oxygen 22%, nitrogen, etc.)
                      ICE of a car, well, you basically answered yourself (AIR, but not oxygen)
                      Quote: Kars
                      For internal combustion engines


                      Quote: Kars
                      and liter? gram per gram?

                      air / fuel ratio
                      everything is clear here

                      to conduct a reaction with 85.0 grams of iron (III) oxide, 28.7 grams of aluminum is needed.
                      wink
                      1. Santa Fe
                        18 October 2013 16: 17
                        0
                        I did not understand the last paragraph
                      2. postman
                        postman 19 October 2013 04: 20
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I did not understand the last paragraph

                        A friend from Ukraine asked:
                        Quote: Kars
                        Mass parts is liter per liter? Gram per gram?

                        Well, the first came to hand, then brought
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 18 October 2013 16: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      For a wall of 6x3 m = 18m.sq., IT = 6 N (300kgs)

                      Do you count the windows? And the fact that the shock wave is on the path of least resistance? Lack of brisance?
                      Quote: Postman
                      Stoichiometric coefficient FOR AIR (oxygen 22%, nitrogen, etc.)

                      Okay, let's go the other way
                      Quote: Postman
                      THAT IS 300L of fuel? , this is 0,3 cubic meters
                      WHAT IS THE VOLUME, Volumes of the interior of the ship?
                      10 cubic meters + outside air (this is not pl)

                      How many of 300 liters of fuel will turn into an aerosol of the desired concentration after breaking through the bulkhead and destroying the rocket’s fuel tank until it is ignited by sparks from metal, from a working engine, etc.? 1% 5% 60%
                      Quote: Postman
                      to conduct a reaction with 85.0 grams of iron (III) oxide, 28.7 grams of aluminum is needed.

                      Thank you for the thyrmite formula, but something will tell me that it’s not it. Iron oxide by the way, oxidizer, are you here?
                      Quote: Postman
                      I can, for sure.
                      But how long will it take you.
                    3. postman
                      postman 19 October 2013 04: 29
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Do you count the windows? And the fact that the shock wave is on the path of least resistance?

                      Well, we did not stipulate the windows ... Are they closed?
                      3,0 mx 6m = 18 sq.m
                      1,2m x 1,5m = 1,8 sq.m
                      while squeezing windows, demolish the wall
                      Quote: Kars
                      How much of 300 liters of fuel will turn

                      almost everything is probably there, the process is so peculiar, you just do not pay attention to what I wrote already:
                      Quote: Postman
                      even on the launch vehicle there is fuel residues (the so-called guarantee reserve - up to 1-2% of the refueling mass), when they merge through the drainage holes from the tanks, form an aerosol cloud /

                      Just drain, drain and 100% aerosol
                      Quote: Kars
                      Thank you for the Tirmit formula, but something tells me that it’s not it

                      Quote: Kars
                      Thank you for the Tirmit formula, but something tells me that this is not it.

                      Yes, this is not the topic, this is the question (yours) that there are mass fractions, parts.
                      Could lead for hydrogen
                      Quote: Kars
                      But how long will it take you.

                      Prepare an aerosol? Or destroy the house (WHOSE?)
                      belay
                    4. Kars
                      Kars 20 October 2013 11: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      while squeezing windows, demolish the wall

                      It is clear that you (well, you better know how) will write a letter to the Mythbusters.
                      Quote: Postman
                      almost all probably

                      And I say that almost nothing less than 10%

                      But I think you can look for facts of a volumetric explosion when testing Soviet liquid-propellant rockets using full-scale samples, and cite where such references are found in open literature.
                      Quote: Postman
                      Prepare an aerosol? Or destroy a house (WHOSE?)

                      Evaporate 10 liters of gasoline in this way.
                    5. postman
                      postman 21 October 2013 11: 27
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Evaporate 10 liters of gasoline in this way.

                      To all your arrivals, no answer!
                      1. Why evaporate? I need to make an aerosol (approx. Spray bottle with deodorant ...)
                      2.in any rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine: fuel is under boost pressure (excessive)
                      Is it necessary to continue further?
                      3. and at home aerosol
                      as follows:

                      Or so:

                      so or:
                      RU (11) 2254314 (13) C1 / METHOD FOR PRODUCING AEROSOL AND AEROSOL GENERATOR
                    6. Kars
                      Kars 21 October 2013 11: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      To all your arrivals, no answer!

                      Arrivals? It’s so in order to increase personal knowledge, and really write to the Destroyers? Do you go to the libraries of the congress? It's probably easier.

                      Quote: Postman
                      1. Why evaporate? I need to make an aerosol (approx. Spray bottle with deodorant ...)

                      By the way, the destroyers did such a joke, I don’t know how much gas there is in our distribution, but there were about a hundred cylinders - so the American .. cardboard ... house didn’t fall apart.
                      Quote: Postman
                      in any rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine: the fuel is under boost pressure

                      In the fuel tank? I’m not an expert here - I looked at Mosquito, Termita - I didn’t find any pressure deep in the tanks. But here again the question arises - if everything is so prone to a Volumetric explosion, then they should be a frequent occurrence, and even open literature. Especially in connection with the tests. Where inert BS.VAF somehow threw off pictures where the results of hitting a special vessel target - something there I did not observe the volumetric explosions.
                    7. postman
                      postman 21 October 2013 14: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      , and really write to the Destroyers?

                      in childhood, we organized a DYuP: "squad of young arsonists (firefighters essno)"
                      Quote: Kars
                      cardboard .. the house didn’t fall apart.

                      Was it a volume explosion? Aerosols
                      Quote: Kars
                      In the fuel tank?

                      is always:
                      -It is thin-walled and maximally drained to ensure strength-NADDUV (try to break the cylinder under pressure and without)
                      - it is necessary to provide a STABLE supply of the TC to the fuel intake, in spite of any dynamic maneuvers with g greater than g Terrestrial (or make a "surface" water intake)
                      -very often (for small) missiles-EXPLOSIVE fuel supply
                      =============
                      you take a new aerosol can, you pierce a nail (anywhere) - you get an AEROSOL
                      SAME WITH RN AND FUEL TANK IN CONTACT WITH HULL
                      Quote: Kars
                      to a volume explosion, they should be a frequent occurrence, and even in open literature

                      And where are they anti-ship missiles with rocket engines fired on ships?
                      Exetset does not count

                      Quote: Kars
                      The VAF somehow threw off pictures to me where the results of hitting a special target ship - something there I did not observe Volumetric explosions.

                      send me interesting to see
                    8. Kars
                      Kars 21 October 2013 20: 17
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      Was it a volume explosion? Aerosols

                      Almost a copy of what you were going to do with 10 liters of gasoline.
                      Quote: Postman
                      is always:

                      Well, it’s quite logical, but I didn’t meet something.
                      Quote: Postman
                      And where are they anti-ship missiles with rocket engines fired on ships?

                      Yes, almost all Soviet ones are the same Eilat, the same Indo-Pakistani. How many times did a Comet with an inert warhead get into the Red Caucasus? And there I heard nothing about a volume explosion.
                      Quote: Postman
                      send me interesting to see

                      If I could.
                    9. Santa Fe
                      21 October 2013 22: 29
                      0
                      spray can with deodorant + matches = nishtyak flamethrower

                      no explosions
                      Quote: Kars
                      And where are they anti-ship missiles with rocket engines fired on ships?

                      From the exercises of the Pacific Fleet, 2011

                      floating ship


                    10. Kars
                      Kars 21 October 2013 22: 34
                      +1
                      The quote is not mine.

                      By the way, something is not observed in the photo from the traces of a volumetric explosion. Or am I missing something?


                      And what tells me that with the armored side, and such destruction would not have happened.
                    11. postman
                      postman 24 October 2013 13: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      By the way, something is not observed in the photo from the traces of a volumetric explosion. Or am I missing something?

                      How do you distinguish?
                      Tea is not the jungle
                      Quote: Kars
                      with an armored side, there would be no such destruction.

                      with armor it may not break through (in any case)
                    12. Kars
                      Kars 24 October 2013 17: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      How do you distinguish?
                      Tea is not the jungle

                      There should still be distinguishing features.
                      Quote: Postman
                      with armor it may not break through (in any case)

                      I hope deeply for this. I wish I could find confirmation somewhere. Somewhere there are tests of Harpoon, Exozet, penguin.
                    13. postman
                      postman 25 October 2013 00: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      .Where there are tests of Harpoon, Exozet, penguin.

                      Well exoset not only "tests" are
                      Kaptsov, how many times has he trailed with this exoset, as with the described bag.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 11: 26
    +2
    Nuuu, all that I wanted to say about this - I already said on the alternativehistory :))) http://alternathistory.org.ua/rim-8-talos-protiv-broni-effektivnost-porazheniya Where the author came from
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 October 2013 11: 53
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      http://alternathistory.org.

      I do not distort Tungstep))))))
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 12: 05
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        I do not distort Tungstep))))))

        Sorry, I don’t understand - you don’t digest, right?
        And I really liked our discussion with him :)))
        Quote: Kars
        Or maybe they were still fighting? And not with an inert part of the explosive that exploded.

        This riddle is great to eat. But I wouldn’t blame the staff for lying in this the case, nevertheless, it is usually an inert warhead that is usually fired at target ships. Although, of course, dad Mueller was right when he uttered a phrase that captivates with its genius: "Stirlitz, I admit EVERYTHING" :)
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 October 2013 13: 20
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          don't digest, right?

          absolutely true.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          nevertheless, it is usually the inert warhead that is fired at at target ships.

          usually, of course, yes - targets are not cheap either. Therefore, I can’t say anything. Although I would love to see a video of this test.
  • understudy
    understudy 17 October 2013 12: 11
    +2
    In the heated debate about the "living dead" and "ritual victims" in the confrontation between the two largest fleets that have ever plowed the oceans, there was no final point.
    ______________________________
    Like this? The "point" has been set, albeit not bold, but characteristic - the brazenly abandoned their intentions, the Americans piled up. What else is needed to maintain calm in general and the morale of the Navy in particular? So, may the glory of the sailors of the USSR come with the Russian Navy! Something like this... fellow
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 17 October 2013 12: 44
      +4
      Quote: Understudy
      And what else is needed to maintain calm in general and the fighting spirit of the Navy in particular?

      New powerful ships, including aircraft carriers. hi

      Quote: Understudy
      So, may the glory of the sailors of the USSR come to the Russian Navy!

      And may every year our Navy only grow stronger! drinks
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 17 October 2013 13: 08
    +1
    Only the blind could miss the 300-meter hull “John F. Kennedy”. Three full-time salvo for sighting - the fourth in the "apple"!

    Well, this is subject to the absence of opposition from the Americans. However, expecting such a stupid thing. Accompanied by our cruisers, Project 68, the American squadron, at least a link of the A-6 Intruder / A-7B Corsair II deck attack aircraft will constantly hang in the air, and another one in high alert will be at launch positions. There will also be a RA-5C Vigilante reconnaissance aircraft in the air who will monitor our squadron and when trying to point cruiser guns to American ships (the turn of the gun turrets will be noticed right away, and since this is not a quick process, the Americans will have time to warn lifting airplanes into the air) the duty unit will receive an order to prepare for the attack, and at the first salvo it will start it. Our cruisers under air attack will have to maneuver, change course and speed, which will affect the accuracy of shooting. As a result, the outcome of the battle will not be as likely as Oleg described.
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 October 2013 13: 23
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      and since this is not a quick process,

      C'mon this vet is not a serf weapon, but a fully mechanized tower
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 17 October 2013 14: 27
        0
        Quote: Kars
        C'mon this vet is not a serf weapon, but a fully mechanized tower

        It is clear that we are talking about seconds, a 12-second turn of 90 degrees is not enough. 12 seconds to turn, plus a few seconds to hover. This time is enough to understand the intentions of the commander of the cruiser and give the corresponding order to all services.
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 October 2013 14: 29
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          12 seconds to turn, plus a few seconds to hover. This time

          Well, we’ll add another time for the shells to reach the target, well, let’s put the third salvo in. What will be done in this period of time.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 17 October 2013 14: 37
            -2
            Quote: Kars
            What time will have time to do.

            Raise four attack aircraft into the air, launch an attack by attack aircraft that are in the air, and jam the Zalp radar station.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 October 2013 14: 42
              +3
              Quote: Nayhas
              Take four attack aircraft into the air,

              they will not be able to do anything. The maximum that will launch on the catapults.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 17 October 2013 17: 09
                -1
                Quote: Kars
                they will not be able to do anything. The maximum that will launch on the catapults.

                There are four catapults on Kennedy, i.e. four attack aircraft have time to lift.
                1. Santa Fe
                  17 October 2013 21: 19
                  +3
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  There are four catapults on Kennedy, i.e. four attack aircraft have time to lift.

                  Yes, at least ten. Aircraft cannot take off at the same time

                  EMNIP standards on nimitsy - at least 30 seconds of waiting, after takeoff from an adjacent catapult. Otherwise they will face and kill

                  Deckers after take-off fly to the brink of stall speed, are very slow and clumsy, they need time to at least a little bit to get comfortable in the air and gain speed

                  During these 2 minutes, the cruiser will have time to plant a few volleys at Kennedy

                  And how many of these 4 unfortunate aircraft will do - in conditions when the Soviet Navy has its own air defense systems and anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance ??

                  Destroyer "Excited" pr. 56-A - instead of the stern tower of the M-1 "Volna" air defense missile system. You can see the battery of anti-aircraft guns AK-230 (1000 rounds / min + automated fire control system "Lynx")
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 17 October 2013 21: 57
                    -1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    EMNIP standards on nimitsy - at least 30 seconds of waiting, after takeoff from an adjacent catapult. Otherwise they will face and kill

                    For the start of four cars pre-installed on the starting position will take no more than 30 seconds, because they take off almost in pairs. But this is not so important. The important thing is that at this time one squadron will be on duty in the air. Or do you think that the admiral on the aircraft carrier does not understand the threat from the USSR cruisers? As long as the aircraft carrier is within the range of the cruiser’s shotgun, the aircraft carrier’s command, even out of a sense of self-preservation, will do everything to prevent the cruiser from damaging the aircraft carrier. And the speculation here sounded that our cruisers could be at a distance of 5 km. complete nonsense. AUG has enough speed to prevent it from approaching such a distance.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    During these 2 minutes, the cruiser will have time to plant a few volleys at Kennedy

                    How much will they be aimed. If the first shot is quite possible under normal conditions, then immediately the jammer RA-5C Vigilante will cut his "hurdy-gurdy" to the fullest, turning the radar into useless pieces of iron and adjusting the shooting will have to the old-fashioned way. Moreover, the Skyhawks (they were on the Kennedy in 1969) in the air will certainly start an attack and the cruisers will have to change course and speed, which will affect the accuracy of their shooting.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And how many of these 4 unfortunate aircraft will do - in conditions when the Soviet Navy has its own air defense systems and anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance ??

                    Well, first of all, not 4, but 12. One squadron consists of 12 vehicles. Secondly, the Volna air defense system is a shipborne version of the C-125, the effectiveness of which was tested a year later in Egypt. According to our information, then "In July - August 1970, in 16 firings (33 missiles), 9 Israeli aircraft were shot down and 3 damaged", according to the Israeli side, 5 aircraft were shot down. The network has information about the 24 Phantoms raid on the Soviet anti-aircraft missile group, as a result of which ours shot down 2 Phantoms and damaged 1. No electronic warfare means were used, despite this, the losses of the attacking side were less than 10%!
                    Those. it took more than 6 missiles to destroy one aircraft (Israeli data are more credible, because usually enemy losses are overestimated). In this regard, the likelihood that our anti-aircraft gunners in the conditions of electronic countermeasures will work better than their land counterparts (and obviously not ordinary calculations were sent to Egypt) is more than low.
                    PS: I repeat, I believe that the aircraft carrier does not raise for its protection the attack aircraft, reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft BEFORE a possible conflict, the direct accusation of the US Navy command of cretinism and passivity.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      17 October 2013 23: 14
                      +3
                      One thing is not clear to me - what for super-heavy heavy reconnaissance RA-5C ??
                      there are enough signalmen with binoculars)))
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      As long as the aircraft carrier is within the range of the cruiser’s shotgun, the aircraft carrier’s command, even out of a sense of self-preservation, will do everything to prevent the cruiser from damaging the aircraft carrier

                      It's useless. USSR Navy found critical vulnerability of American squadrons

                      68 bis cruiser at line of sight did not leave time and opportunity to take any measures. The only chance is to shoot Talos, ahead of the Soviet Navy. But who will guarantee that the first signal comes from Washington, and not from Moscow ...
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      AUG has enough speed to prevent it from approaching such a distance.

                      68 bis and destroyers definitely faster
                      AUG is forced to maintain its course under the wind and provide takeoff and landing operations
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      Well, firstly not 4, but 12. One squadron consists of 12 cars.

                      Where do they come from? From the sleeve?
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      information about the 24 Phantoms raid on the Soviet anti-aircraft missile group

                      Everything is different here.
                      1. there are no natural shelters above the sea
                      2. Skyhams will have to bomb the cruiser from above - otherwise a) the bomb detonators (Falklands) will not cock up b) the bomb, without gaining the necessary speed, will simply ricochet against the armor or explode on the upper deck, peeling off the paint

                      I know that you want to intercede for the US Navy, but by the evening you began to surrender something.

                      Kennedy will hardly have time to lift 4 planes in a few minutes. and any constant duty in the air of dozens of aircraft with tons of bombs is out of the question. it's impossible. And it’s useless - in any case, they won’t have time

                      This remarkable scheme from Andrei-Chelyabinsk demonstrates that statements about the simultaneous placement of 70 shooters, fighters, scouts, etc. ab on board nothing more than a bluff and murzilka for ordinary people
                      1. Nayhas
                        Nayhas 18 October 2013 00: 16
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        One thing is not clear to me - what for super-heavy heavy reconnaissance RA-5C ??
                        there are enough signalmen with binoculars)))

                        Well, in general, they always keep the scout in the air in "tense moments" and the flight or squadron, depending on the danger, also dangles in the air, and if it is very hot, then at the starting positions with the pilots in the cockpits there are always planes, the rest are ready for installation in position filled and equipped.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Cruisers 68 bis at a line of sight did not leave time and opportunity to take any measures

                        Nonsense. In order to break away from them, the help of the guard ships ready for a dangerous maneuver at intersecting courses is enough to make the pursuers slow down and begin to maneuver in order to avoid a collision.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Everything is different here.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1. there are no natural shelters above the sea

                        And in the Sinai desert of shelters the sea is straight ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        2. Skyhocks will have to bomb the cruiser from a height

                        Of course, only with cabrio, and before that approach at low altitude. In addition to bombs, NURS Mk 32 "Zuni" with a range of 8 km were used.
                        But this is not important. I mean that the effectiveness of the "Wave" is not high enough to disrupt an air attack. In addition, for 1969. The Volna air defense missile system had far from outstanding characteristics, even if we take it on faith that the KChF was rearmed on the B-601, but still the minimum defeat height was only 100m. at a distance of 6 km., and even worse in conditions of interference. They began to improve noise immunity only in the mid-70s ...
                        So pr.68 bis did not present any particular danger, but RRC pr.58 was dangerous with its P-35s, but for some reason you ignored them.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        18 October 2013 01: 03
                        +2
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        neither the scout is always kept in the air in "tense moments"

                        Hawkai. but not a scout Vigillent
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        and unit or squadron

                        Coef. readiness of squadrons can be equal to 100%.

                        the air wing will not be able to provide round-the-clock continuous patrol for a long time (a week). The technique requires planned, sometimes long-term maintenance and repair. But the attack aircraft still (according to the plan) needed to exert "force pressure" on Syria ... where to get planes here
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        then at the starting positions with pilots in the cockpits there are always airplanes, the rest are ready for installation on tucked and equipped positions.

                        until the engine is started (the procedure takes several minutes, with an external source connected) - a hail of shells of 100 and 152 mm will crash onto the deck
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        In order to break away from them, the help of the guard ships ready for a dangerous maneuver at intersecting courses is enough to make the pursuers slow down and

                        Those. AUG additional ships will be required. But where to get them?

                        If all Kr and esm. The US Navy will rush to maneuver dangerously - who will provide anti-aircraft defense and air defense in the near zone ??
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        And in the Sinai desert of shelters the sea is straight ...

                        Sinai is different.

                        Quote: Nayhas
                        In addition to bombs, NURS Mk 32 "Zuni" with a range of 8 km were used.

                        scratch the cruiser paint
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        I mean that the effectiveness of the "Wave" is not high enough to disrupt an air attack.

                        forgot about the AK-230. wall of fire.

                        in any case - this dispute is meaningless - the planes are not able to instantly be above the cruiser. In the few minutes before they receive an order, they will turn around and lie down from the waiting area, orient themselves and begin the attack; the cruiser will complete its task.
                      3. Nayhas
                        Nayhas 18 October 2013 12: 33
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Hawkai. but not a scout Vigillent

                        At Kennedy in 1969 there was no Hokai, there was a Tracer, but again this is not the main thing. Scouts carried constant watch on contact with a potential enemy. The main task of radio-technical intelligence.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the air wing will not be able to provide round-the-clock continuous patrol for a long time (week).

                        Undoubtedly, therefore, the aircraft carrier must keep a distance allowing refueling and regular maintenance of equipment. Honestly, I have never seen our ship groupings go side by side. According to the recollections of our admirals, the Americans, when our ships appeared, took the aircraft carrier away, at a distance exceeding the launch of our anti-ship missiles. They rightly feared the P-35 and did not climb on the rampage.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Those. AUG additional ships will be required. But where to get them?

                        As far as I remember, American AUGs did not disdain the help of NATO comrades, and the 6th fleet of the US Navy consisted of two AUGs. The situation off the coast of Libya did not immediately form.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sinai is different.

                        Of course, there is an option to position the radar on a hill thereby increasing the detection range. There is more of a question in personnel; in Egypt, the best calculations worked, and most likely officers.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        scratch the cruiser paint

                        This is if on board, getting into the superstructure will cause destruction and fire.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        forgot about the AK-230. wall of fire.

                        Yeah, the wall of fire ... The device was certainly not bad, but you are clearly exaggerating its capabilities.
                        I’m talking about the fact that our existing air defense systems will not be able to disrupt the attack of the A-4C attack aircraft, while the Americans, while protecting the aircraft carrier, will not be reckoned with losses.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In the few minutes before they receive an order, they will turn around and lie down from the waiting area, orient themselves and begin the attack; the cruiser will complete its task.

                        Oleg, you are modeling a situation in which you give our advantage in advance. You mention about "A day later, the AUG was already moving in a dense ring of Soviet cruisers and submarines holding a" pistol to the temple "of the Sixth Fleet." at the same time, do not provide any data on the balance of power, who and where was, at what distance. If the time spent by the AUG in close contact with the ships of OPESK 5 lasted no more than a day, then the Americans did not need to keep the aviation on duty in the air around the clock. But AUG all the same left and the fault is not at all the cruiser pr. 68 bis, but our missile cruiser Grozny (if it was there).
                      4. Santa Fe
                        18 October 2013 16: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        it cost the Americans nothing to keep air on duty around the clock

                        And what's the use?

                        It is impossible to "hang" over the KR all the time - A4 is not a helicopter. Take a look at the approaching passenger plane, what kind of detour it makes over the city, what its turning radius

                        Attack aircraft, at best, could hang out in the waiting area a couple of tens of miles from the AUG. while the signalman sees the deployed towers, until he informs the CP, while they check the message, they will contact the planes, until the planes reach the KR and ESM, we will orient and attack, while the dropped bombs reach the ship - the KR will have time to complete its task 10 times. And after falling a pair of bombs, he is unlikely to cease fire.

                        In the event of a preventive strike, the KP 68 bis is guaranteed to destroy the AUG. The most effective tool, brilliant tactics

                        The only chance to save is to get ahead of the Soviets and fuck the Talos and Terriers in the Kyrgyz Republic
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Scouts were constantly on duty in contact with a potential enemy

                        What can be seen from a plane flying at 800 km / h? The cruiser will flash under the wing in a second.
                        here you need a signalman with binoculars
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        The main task of radio-technical intelligence.

                        This will somehow help in the fight against the 68-bis and torpedo-artillery destroyer, etc. 56
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Yes, and the 6th fleet of the US Navy consisted of two AUGs.

                        On September 4, "Kennedy" left Cannes, on the 7th it was surrounded by the CD and ESM. The Soviet Navy, on the 15th, came to Naples. No two augs were in sight
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        there is an option to position the radar on a hill thereby increasing the detection range

                        Sea surface - nothing like Sinai
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        falling into the superstructure will cause destruction and fire.

                        maybe after a day of continuous shelling of Zuni, the cruiser will partially lose combat effectiveness
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        with our available air defense systems, our A-4C attack aircraft cannot thwart the attack

                        Out of 4, A4 is unlikely to reach 2-3. What can 2-3 airplanes do against KR and esm? In the face of a strong anti-aircraft reaction? NOTHING
                        scratch the paint and crush several rooms under the upper deck
              2. old man54
                old man54 18 October 2013 04: 09
                +2
                Quote: Nayhas
                (Israeli data are more credible, because usually the enemy’s losses are overestimated).

                and have the Jews never underestimated their losses? Like the Yankers with Tommy? laughing Well you give! fellow
      2. Magellan
        Magellan 17 October 2013 14: 49
        +5
        Quote: Nayhas
        Take four attack aircraft into the air

        Yes of course. roll the plane to the catapult, attach, align - launch. The pilot must gain a height of at least several hundred meters, navigate, lie down on a combat course and drop bombs, and until the dropped bombs reach the ship ...)))

        Dead number.
        it takes at least a few minutes, if not more
        Quote: Nayhas
        to interfere with the Zalp radar.

        in addition to three radars of various ranges
        the cruiser has the main, backup and tower guidance systems with optical rangefinders and analog computers of the Molniya ATs system

        Miss a 300 meter ship with 40 cab. This is nonsense.

        What about universal 100mm artillery wink
        Quote: Nayhas
        Take four attack aircraft into the air

        Yes Yes Yes. Soviet ships do not have anti-aircraft weapons
        Project 61 BOD in the protection of the cruiser - 20 of these were built. With two M-1 SAMs (an analogue of S-125 which was shot down by Stealth in Yugoslavia) and twin 76 mm universal anti-aircraft guns (shells with a remote fuse)

  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 17 October 2013 13: 52
    +1
    Quote: Nayhas
    As a result, the outcome of the battle will not be as likely as Oleg described.

    and what then did our submarines do?
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 21: 13
      +4
      Quote: PSih2097
      and what then did our submarines do?

      PL is not for such comedies
      The boats need to be told exactly in advance whether to start killing enemies or not.

      They will be connected a little later and will gnaw everyone in the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean.
  • nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 17 October 2013 14: 12
    +2
    The result is important - they left, but these did not poke around.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 October 2013 15: 23
    -1
    it was written fascinatingly, but in my opinion, it was improbable, if only because no one was going to and did not want to fight, and therefore the Soviet cruisers were quietly next to the amers. Oleg speaks of a sudden attack and firing on an aircraft carrier, the consequences can be serious, although not fatal. But surprise in reality is hardly achievable. I will explain why: such a sudden attack is a nuclear war and no one in their right mind, even if they decide to such a war, will not give a sudden order to attack only cruisers off the coast of Libya) A general increase in the combat readiness of troops on the continent will begin, many communication centers and so on will be activated. This is instantly detected and appropriate orders are given to their ships and to the armed forces in general. The activation of Soviet ships will also be extremely visible, there are a lot of signs and I will not be surprised that they will not even be allowed to make a salvo. The US military has always been brought up in a preventive manner of warfare and the fact that they knew how to upset the Caribbean crisis showed that they were not afraid of any war, rather, on the contrary, they urged the president to deliver a preventive strike.
    There is also a moment: when the two powers are in the "cocked" state, no one will even let them approach the aircraft carrier, but they will act like this - "any approach of a Soviet warship closer (say) 40 km will be considered as an attempt to attack with all the attendant "
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 15: 52
      +3
      Quote: barbiturate
      This is instantly detected and appropriate orders are given to their ships and to the armed forces in general.

      And which ones?
      Quote: barbiturate
      "any approach of a Soviet warship closer (say) 40 km will be considered an attempt at an attack with all the consequences"

      Answer: "And we don't care ... ehhkm ... on a drum. This requirement is contrary to international agreements on the ocean, so roll your sausage along Malaya Spasskaya. And if you want to start ... you know the consequences."
      No one and nothing will prevent the Soviet ships from drawing closer to the American.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 17 October 2013 16: 25
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And which ones?


        but very simple ones, for example, continuous alert airborne alertness of the attack aircraft in readiness to enter the cruiser in a couple of minutes, alertness at the fighting posts of sailors in readiness when you turn the towers of the Soviet cruiser open fire, issuing orders on readiness to attack submarines, jamming radio communications, you can drive the cruiser across the sea at a speed of 30+ knots and see how soon they will go to refuel and where) Americans are inventive guys tact. And all this in a relatively calm period, but what if ...

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Answer: "And we don't care ... ehhkm ... on a drum. This requirement is contrary to international agreements on the ocean, so roll your sausage on Malaya Spasskaya. And if you want to start ... you know the consequences." Nobody and nothing will not prevent Soviet ships from getting closer to American ones.


        In my opinion, here you have a mistake Andrey, you again think in terms of peacetime, what international agreements? who will be interested in them? If the powers are ready to exchange nuclear strikes and the advantage in those years was clearly for the United States and both ours and the Americans knew about it. For example, during the Caribbean crisis, the nuclear potential was estimated 1 to 17, guess in whose favor?) No one will prevent the amers from talking and acting extremely impudently and no consequences stopped them from attacks with weak depth charges of our submarines and forced them to surface, the British shot our sonar buoys etc. And yet, for some reason, I am sure that in the event of a strong escalation of the conflict, they would just strike first, they are not taught (as far as I know and can judge) how to wait for a volley on their own, but our military, with all the heroism and courage, they do not like to show initiative. In our army, they drum into "the initiative of the initiator, do it like everyone else and do not rock the boat")
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2013 16: 51
          +7
          Quote: barbiturate
          but very simple ones, for example, continuous alert airborne attack aircraft in readiness to enter the cruiser in a couple of minutes

          Around the clock - oh, it’ll be hard for them ... But let's say. But how many six intruders can do against combining a cruiser and several destroyers? And, excuse me, here you are writing that for the Americans the turn of the towers in their direction will be a symbol of the beginning of the war. But will the rise of military aircraft with a combat load become such a symbol for our cruiser?
          Quote: barbiturate
          duty at the combat posts of sailors in readiness when turning the towers of the Soviet cruiser open fire

          So use it. They will not turn their towers faster than ours.
          Quote: barbiturate
          giving orders on readiness to attack submarines

          This is useless. Until they themselves see that the massacre has begun, how will you contact them?
          Quote: barbiturate
          you can drive the cruiser by sea at a speed of 30 + knots and see how soon they will go to refuel and where)

          And then the Americans themselves, where will they go to recharge with fuel? :))))
          Quote: barbiturate
          No one will prevent the Amers from talking and acting extremely brazenly and no consequences stopped them from attacks with the weak depth charges of our submarines and forced them to emerge, the British shot our sonar buoys, etc.

          That's just you somehow strangely correlate these actions. Did the Americans do what? They declared the blockade of Cuba. And we on this their blockade ... leaned on. And they sent a submarine there. And the Americans did not dare to do something to our submarines. They didn’t let out a breath, yes, but of course they did not dare to seriously beat. The same would be with cruisers.
          Quote: barbiturate
          And yet, for some reason I’m sure that in the event of a strong escalation of the conflict, they would simply strike first

          Yes, they wouldn’t do it - just as they didn’t. The Americans are not alternatively gifted, and the leadership in Washington did not want to reduce everything to armageddon. Therefore, they tried in any case to preserve the possibilities of maneuver. Generally speaking, they did not allow themselves to be put in a hopeless situation, but they did not try to put the USSR in a hopeless situation. No one wanted armageddon, neither we nor them.
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 17 October 2013 18: 14
            -3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Around the clock - oh, it’ll be hard for them ... But let's say. But how many six intruders can do against combining a cruiser and several destroyers? And, excuse me, here you are writing that for the Americans the turn of the towers in their direction will be a symbol of the beginning of the war. But will the rise of military aircraft with a combat load become such a symbol for our cruiser?


            Yes, it’s not too hard, all the more vryatli it will drag on for months, a week, no more for sure. Six intruders, after the first call, will make the cruiser battle-worthy, it’s not a battleship anyway, and breaks from a dozen half-explosive bombs will instantly waddle it, and then destroy the destroyers, to the ram with their ships. Aircraft are constantly being lifted from an aircraft carrier and in a threatened period, probably with a combat load, but the turret turn is an abnormal position of the cruiser and indicates a clear intention to shoot.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So use it. They will not turn their towers faster than ours.

            I agree and get a mutual, but not the shooting of rushing amers

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This is useless. Until they themselves see that the massacre has begun, how will you contact them?


            I agree, it’s rather a weapon of retaliation, but you can morally press, for example, sometimes floating up within sight during a period of tension

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And then the Americans themselves, where will they go to recharge with fuel? :))))


            Well, here it’s much easier for them, there are bases and allies and supply ships nearby, this business was delivered to them normally, they are constantly at sea, but our ships will have to stop escorting and go to the ports of Libya.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2013 08: 17
              +2
              Quote: barbiturate
              Yes, it’s not too hard, all the more vryatli it will drag on for months, a week, no more for sure.

              I can only repeat what I already wrote above.
              An airplane is not a balloon; in order for it to fly, it needs a bunch of all kinds of preparation — preflight, afterflight after each flight, afterflight at the end of a flight day and after a certain number of flight hours. At the same time, an 1 flight hour requires from 20 to 50 man-hours of maintenance.
              Therefore, the normative coefficient of combat tension (i.e., the number of sorties per day for one aircraft) on aircraft carriers is two. In reality, it was even lower, reaching 1,5 in the Iraq war. But let's take two, all in all - each squadron makes 2 sorties per day, i.e. three squadrons on AB ensure that one squadron stays in the air for 12-18 hours, no more.

              Quote: barbiturate
              Six intruders after the first call will make the cruiser unbreakable

              Six "Intruders" against the air defense of a cruiser and several destroyers? It is highly doubtful that at least one will hit at all.
              Quote: barbiturate
              I agree and get a mutual, but not the shooting of rushing amers

              the reversal will work only if the Americans have an artillery cruiser in the ranks. And if not, then the leg of the "Lega" with its 2 * 2 76-mm and the cruiser with its 4 * 3-152-mm - this will be the shooting
              Quote: barbiturate
              Well, here it’s much easier for them, near both bases and allies and supply ships

              Yeah, only leaving the combat maneuvering area for refueling is not buzzing. And supply ships not only the United States had
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 18 October 2013 20: 06
                -1
                Okay, such discussions need to be conducted in person, tired of typing) It's just that you underestimate the six Intruders in vain, my opinion is formed a long time ago and I understand that the sea of ​​fire and the complete shock of the cruiser’s crew when several high-explosive caliber high-explosive bombs hit + I don’t doubt numerous hits from the first call the target.
          2. barbiturate
            barbiturate 17 October 2013 18: 15
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That's just you somehow strangely correlate these actions. Did the Americans do what? They declared the blockade of Cuba. And we on this their blockade ... leaned on. And they sent a submarine there. And the Americans did not dare to do something to our submarines. They didn’t let out a breath, yes, but of course they did not dare to seriously beat. The same would be with cruisers.


            I just showed you that no one is afraid of anyone, and if the Americans announced that escorting their warships by the Soviets would now be an act of war and appropriate measures would be taken, do you think the joint voyage would continue? Cuba, too, was protected by all sorts of agreements there, but the Americans wanted no one too !! They weren’t allowed there either by the civil vessels of the USSR or by submarines. And just as the warriors at the Pentagon did not ask Kennedy, he, seeing that Khrushchev was playing back, did not start a war, which is why the submarines were not drowned, but simply mocked.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, they wouldn’t do it - just as they didn’t. The Americans are not alternatively gifted, and the leadership in Washington did not want to reduce everything to armageddon. Therefore, they tried in any case to preserve the possibilities of maneuver. Generally speaking, they did not allow themselves to be put in a hopeless situation, but they did not try to put the USSR in a hopeless situation. No one wanted armageddon, neither we nor them.


            My opinion would be done. In Cuba, ours completed an ultimatum and there was no blow, but there were a lot of top US dignitaries during the war, only Kennedy’s patience gave the world a chance
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2013 08: 38
              +4
              Quote: barbiturate
              I just showed you that no one is afraid of anyone, and if the Americans announced that the escort of their warships by the Soviets would now be an act of war and appropriate measures would be taken, do you think the joint voyage would continue?

              Do you think they would risk making such a statement? I doubt very much
              Quote: barbiturate
              Cuba, too, was protected by all sorts of agreements there, but the Americans wanted no one too !! They weren’t allowed there either by the civil vessels of the USSR or by submarines.

              Let us then analyze everything in detail and without simplifications. What happened?
              Our silent glanders drag rockets to Cuba (Operation Anadyr), the Americans are jamming them and ... what? But nothing. They did not dare to declare a blockade. Because the blockade is actually a declaration of war. And missile deployment is never an announcement. The USA, instead of showing your recommended steepness, turns to the Organization of American States. The OAS unanimously supported the imposition of sanctions against Cuba. The action was called not “blockade”, but “quarantine”, which did not mean a complete cessation of maritime traffic, but only an obstacle to arms supplies. At the same time, American ships received a clear order - they were allowed to open fire only after receiving a personal order from the president. 6 of our transports went to Cuba after the blockade.
              You can still recall black Saturday, although this is not naval affairs. When our SAM in Cuba shot down the U-2
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 18 October 2013 20: 10
                0
                Here, in many respects, your truth, only you will agree with the statement that no one was afraid of anyone and the Americans could act something like this: Raise a couple of dozen aircraft, and then just drop a 1000fn caliber bomb near the cruiser and see how its sides flow) to give exhaustive explanations, they say it’s a coincidence and you don’t have to go so close with an aircraft carrier, you never know what an accident) all their actions before and after speak of such a development of events, they were not afraid of anyone and were brought up not in a cowardly manner, this is a myth
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2013 23: 25
                  +4
                  Quote: barbiturate
                  only you will agree with the statement that no one was afraid of anyone

                  So I don’t argue with that :))) They were not afraid of us, we are theirs. Everyone was sharp :)))
                  It's just that this is the case - our Navy was just getting on the wing, and of course I could not seriously scratch the US Navy trying to give them classic naval battles - the strength and experience were not the same at all. But such an AUG support really had certain chances for success. Assessing the chances, I come to the conclusion that the one who won the first order will win - they will order the Americans - they will hit the URO from all the guard ships so that it doesn’t seem enough, ours just won’t have time to shoot as it should, although here, the Americans are likely to have options without losses not enough. They will order ours - it could very well be that if the aircraft carrier wasn’t eaten up, then it would be bitten ... But there are not so many large aircraft carriers with planes capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and to knock out at least one or two at the very beginning, when ground armies just turn around to strike ... This is quite serious.
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 19 October 2013 08: 02
                    0
                    I'm just not sure that escorting aug, with a sharp aggravation of the situation, achieved anything other than guidance from external avengers) All experience and analysis (mine and certainly not absolute) shows that the man on the bridge of the American aircraft carrier does not at all calculate the situation either. The gap in the settings of the cruiser of 2-4 bombs of caliber 454kg will deprive him of combat effectiveness for sure, although, in my opinion, there will be 10-12 bombs in 5-7 minutes in the threatened period and the carrier will not destroy 3 volleys, if at all it is put under volleys, and will not stupidly cruiser and destroyers at the elevation angle of the cruiser’s guns
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 17 October 2013 22: 26
          +5
          Quote: barbiturate
          but very simple ones, for example, continuous alert airborne attack aircraft in readiness to enter the cruiser in a couple of minutes

          But the "wobble of the AUG off the coast of Libya" lasted for several days ...

          И EVERYTHING this time the planes were to “hang” in the air CONTINUALLY?
          This alignment of action from the realm of fiction ...
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 18 October 2013 20: 11
            -1
            why not hang in the period of threat, do you think so hard? You are mistaken
            1. Santa Fe
              18 October 2013 21: 11
              +1
              Quote: barbiturate
              why not hang in the period of threat, do you think so hard?

              And what will it give?
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 18 October 2013 21: 35
                -1
                I already answered, but Oleg, I will answer you again) Nobody was shy about anything, everyone was afraid of a nuclear war, it’s clear who has the advantage. Pick up two dozen attack aircraft in the most threatened period, drop a bomb near the cruiser (will you deny the fatal consequences of a surface ship from a close gap?) As you did with sub (outback) and immediately all escort will end, and then diplomats will find out what and how. And it’s easy to hang in the air and instruct pilots in a separate group, it’s my opinion, it may not be right, but my experience of service and experience of service of other people suggests that this is very real and it would be so
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 October 2013 22: 13
                  +2
                  The stakes are too high. Nobody would play like that
                  It is one thing to shoot buoys and throw explosive packs, frightening a boat going at a depth.

                  And quite another thing is to "put" a 500-pounder 30 meters from the side of the cruiser
                  1. who will guarantee that the pilot does not miss and does not get into the cruiser? NONE
                  2. the nerves of the anti-aircraft gunners can not stand - the plane will be knocked down, there will be a major scandal, so not far to the Third World
                  3. A close-up photo of a US Navy aircraft entering a ship will appear in all Soviet, European and American newspapers with the headlines:
                  US Navy VILANTLY ATTACKED THE SOVIET SHIP
                  ACT OF AGGRESSION IN RESPECT TO THE SOVIET UNION
                  U.S. Navy Pilots - Dumb Curved Rams
                  THE NEXT TIME THEY "UNCANCY" WILL DROP A BOMB ON "QUEEN ELIZABETH II"

                  There will be a major scandal, an extraordinary meeting of the UN, diplomats will have to apologize - the Yankees themselves will make fools of themselves
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 18 October 2013 22: 21
                    0
                    However, Oleg, you perfectly understand that a lot of military incidents involving ships of the USSR Navy did not lead to war, and both ours and the Americans acted extremely harshly. In our case, FORCING to pop up the sub, it’s not much harder to drop a bomb with an amazed look near the side of the ship, but after that he will not be able to accompany. And the photo of the cruisers next to the US aug do you think in the UN meeting will be 100% proof ?. But the United States Navy pilot will find the perfect pilot with ease, put on a sight for sore eyes, doubt? And the nerves of the Soviet anti-aircraft gunners will withstand, for there were no orders from Moscow, here we are weaker in making decisions
                    1. Santa Fe
                      18 October 2013 22: 38
                      +2
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      a bunch of military incidents involving Navy ships

                      The results of dangerous maneuvering. Battering ram of destroyer 56 by destroyer Walker, bulk (note - bulk! But not ram) of Selfless, collision of destroyer Bravy with aircraft carrier Ark-Royal (navigation error)

                      But use weapons - no, no!

                      The only bike I know of is that the North Seaers launched a salvo from RBU-6000 behind the stern of the Norwegian RTR Mariyat, about 500 meters from it. BUT the goal was not damaging, but to cleanly take Maryat for a show off. Moreover, Maryata was at the KSF training ground - in the declared danger zone
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      it’s not much harder to drop a bomb with a goggle near the side of the ship

                      More difficult. On the ship there are a lot of military correspondents and political officers with soap dishes
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      And the photo of the cruisers next to the aug.

                      What is this evidence?
                      Sea common
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      But the United States Navy pilot will find the perfect pilot with ease, put on a sight for sore eyes, doubt?

                      no Pentagon dare take responsibility

                      A special statement about the clash was made then in the House of Lords by the Secretary of Defense of England Sir Carrington. And on November 19, ten days after the tragedy played out in the Mediterranean, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper appeared with a tendentious article "From a sore head to a healthy one." And the next day one of the main calibers of the Soviet press rumbled - a half-page article "Risky Game ”-“ Izvestia ”was born.

                      "Being 180 kilometers west of the island of Crete," they cited the details of the emergency, "the aircraft carrier unexpectedly increased its speed, turned sharply to the right and went to cross the course of the Soviet ship ..."


                      And you're all a bomb, a bomb ...
                      1. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 19 October 2013 00: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The results of dangerous maneuvering. Battering ram of destroyer 56 by destroyer Walker, bulk (note - bulk! But not ram) of Selfless, collision of destroyer Bravy with aircraft carrier Ark-Royal (navigational error) But use weapons - no, no! The only bike I know is the North Sea put a salvo from RBU-6000 behind the Norwegian ship RTR Maryata, 500 meters away from her. BUT the goal was not to inflict damage, but to cleanly take Maryata to a show-off. In addition, Maryata was at the KSF training ground - in the declared danger zone


                        Oleg tells me something that the Americans were not at all afraid and not afraid of dangerous maneuvering, especially under normal conditions

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        More difficult. On the ship there are a lot of military correspondents and political officers with soap dishes

                        Well, here the more unproven fact, the presence of anyone on our cruisers)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        "Being 180 kilometers west of the island of Crete," they cited the details of the emergency, "the aircraft carrier unexpectedly increased its speed, turned sharply to the right and went to cross the course of the Soviet ship ..." And you are all a bomb, a bomb ..


                        that's just susceptibility, by nature, acquaintances encountered American guys, they even talked and were offended, like do you really appreciate us so little, like the fleet and sail more and people are well trained, but they are trained, all fools, here your admiral ... isn't it? silence
                      2. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2013 02: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        Americans were not at all afraid and not afraid dangerous maneuveringespecially under normal conditions

                        but not firing!

                        weapons are strictly forbidden
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        Well, here the more unproven fact, the presence of anyone on our cruisers)

                        Politruks were always
                        As well as military commanders, special officers, representatives of the general staff on a long hike, watchmen, signalmen and forward-looking in the end

                        The USSR knew a lot about propaganda and ideological struggle, the modern Internet is replete with photographs of Amer’s ships and Orions of those years, taken from the ships of the Navy of the USSR

                        Drop a bomb near a ship - universal scandal
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        acquaintances came across American guys, they even talked and were offended, as if you really really appreciate us so little, like the fleet is bigger and we sail more and people are well trained

                        Appreciate. because in advance in peacetime their squadrons accompanied
                      3. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 19 October 2013 04: 50
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Appreciate. because in advance in peacetime their squadrons accompanied

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        USSR knew a lot about propaganda and ideological struggle

                        Oleg hi I have been watching these disputes for a long time, but I rarely climb for not special request But the question is all the time there is a mass what starting at least with such trifles as preparation time and leaving the base what the time it takes to go to the estimated TVD what weather what enemy counteraction what if the order to follow and execute falls at the end of the military service, say, a 4-6 month campaign, then how the fatigue of equipment and crew affects what if it’s not the Papuans who are on the drum when they will be bombed — a week earlier or a week later: there’s nothing to beat back request let's say the North Atlantic from October to May wassat How much will the declared TTX decrease and where will the plans of the General Staff go what And this is not a complete list of questions for fans of air waffles wassat
                      4. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 19 October 2013 08: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        but not shooting! weapons are strictly forbidden to use

                        Oleg, how do you know what is forbidden to them? Our seamen were tied with hard bans, about which there is a lot of evidence and such a lot, about the American Navy, where the commander is the viceroy of God on earth.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Drop a bomb near a ship - universal scandal


                        Not at all, the diplomats would give exhaustive explanations about the dangers of being near an aircraft carrier and everything was dictated only by the health of the Soviet sailors, and the bombs drop regularly and you can drop a couple more for the picture, because they are not dumber and no weaker than us.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Appreciate. because in advance in peacetime their squadrons accompanied


                        That's right, it is necessary to accompany, but as a guide, and not as a weapon of the first strike. The same MCC will issue an order for the consumption of precious fuel to change the position of the satellite antennas and tightly take some sort of aug on the expanses of the Pacific Ocean, operators will begin to slowly (this is not a quick process) pull the loaves (949a) there and planning will begin, as it should be, while , escort ships will be immediately recorded in the flow, only the coordinates for the consumption of precious satellite fuel are needed

                        Moreover, in those years, I would not doubt the quick retaliation of American squadrons, even after a nuclear war, our sailors by cowardice never differed and could avenge, only distant
                      5. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 19 October 2013 08: 57
                        -1
                        I made a reservation, I'm sorry) not a satellite antenna of course, but a rotation by several degrees and the start of scanning another area from where the latest data were obtained (before the death of the ships and ours, and I hope Amerov’s)
                      6. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2013 17: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        Oleg, how do you know what is forbidden to them?

                        For all 40 years of the Cold War, NOT ONE CASE has been noted for the deliberate use of weapons against enemy ships and vessels on either side

                        (well, except for the sinking of the Soviet "baby" in the Korean War - but that was a mistake - the Yankees went over from fear and classified this case for half a century; especially since she was in the declared war zone ... or accidental bombs hit the ships of the Far Eastern Shipping Company "Turketan" and "Grisha Hakobyan" - these were unloading the S-75 in the Vietnamese port and accidentally came under attack, 2 people died, the Yankees fought and apologized)

                        It turns out that the ban acted.
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        diplomats would give comprehensive explanations about the dangers of being near an aircraft carrier, and bombs drop regularly

                        For such speeches, Soviet and pro-Soviet paid media mix the US Navy with
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        it is necessary to accompany, but as a guidance, not a weapon of the first strike.

                        All cards are laid in this way - 68 bis could be effectively used as a weapon of the main blow

                        In the 1950-60s, the Soviet Navy could not conduct classical naval battles, because it was too small and weak
                      7. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 19 October 2013 17: 38
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For all 40 years of the Cold War, there was NOT a SINGLE CASE of intentional use of weapons against ships and ships of the enemy on either side (well, except for the sinking of the Soviet "baby" in the Korean War - but that was a mistake - the Yankees were fear and for half a century they classified this case; especially since it was in the declared war zone ... or accidental hits of bombs on the ships of the Far Eastern Shipping Company "Turketan" and "Grisha Hakobyan" - these were unloading the S-75 in the Vietnamese port and accidentally came under attack , 2 people were killed, the Yankees fought and apologized) It turns out that the ban was in effect.


                        You tell it to submariners and Soviet military advisers

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For such speeches, Soviet and pro-Soviet paid media mix the US Navy with


                        such speeches were constantly conducted, along with exhaustive explanations of mistakes, no one is starting a war, just a bomb fell, did your cruiser board flow? excuse me
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        All cards are laid out in this way - 68 bis could be effectively used as a main strike weapon. In the 1950-60s, the Soviet Navy could not conduct classical naval battles, because it was too small and weak

                        suicide bombers and nimble suicide bombers, do not confuse real strength with curiosity, Oleg, they wrote to you about 3% of the reality of attack, here I estimate the percentage even lower, only they will give before death




                        Reply
                        quote

                        Soob
                      8. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2013 19: 26
                        0
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        You tell it to submariners and Soviet military advisers

                        military advisers were in the zones of MILITARY CONFLICTS

                        submariners - I have not heard stories about the use of ASROK on Soviet submarines. Only the pursuit and impulses of sonars, occasionally explosives, without harming the boat itself
                        The Yankees were embarrassed to touch even dizelyuhi during the Caribbean crisis
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        , a bomb just fell, did your cruiser board flow?

                        They have already explained to you three times that this is impossible
                        The act will be regarded as an attack with all the consequences: from newspaper articles to possible nuclear attacks on Washington
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        already wrote about 3% reality attacks

                        why not 4%? Or 14?
                        And what could have prevented 68 bis from striking? (except ban from the Kremlin)
                      9. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 19 October 2013 20: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        military advisers were in the zones of MILITARY CONFLICT submarines - I have not heard stories about the use of ASROK on Soviet submarines. Only the pursuit and impulses of sonars, occasionally explosive packets, without harming the boat itself, the Yankees made it difficult to touch even diesels during the Caribbean crisis


                        We were talking about hard opposition, on the edge, and the Americans in these matters did not show themselves as cowards (like ours, we will be objective) and they did a lot that would be classified as acts of war, only in small ways was allowed to us and them

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They have already explained to you three times that this is impossible. An act will be regarded as an attack with all the consequences: from newspaper articles to possible nuclear attacks on Washington.


                        Oleg, you are a sane person who read a lot and knows (this is not a sublimon, just a statement of fact)), do you seriously think so or are you defending your position? It’s just, it’s so clear to me that the cruiser would just go to the port and NOTHING would follow, which is even interesting, why?)

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        why not 4%? Or 14? And what could have prevented 68 bis from striking? (except ban from the Kremlin)


                        I don’t know, the submariner wrote about 3%, maybe the probability was higher, but they were much more likely. I already wrote about the strike, it’s like pictures of aircraft carriers in peacetime, such as fufland
  • berimor
    berimor 17 October 2013 15: 43
    +4
    "... * on" Dzerzhinsky "- six. Instead of the aft group of the GK, an experimental air defense system M-2 was mounted ..."
    M-2 is a sea-based S-75 air defense system and it was far from being experimental (in 1960, this air defense system shot down an American U-2 spy plane), but it did not fit into the ship's armament as these missiles (the Americans called them in Vietnam - telegraph poles) were almost 11 m long, worked on three very aggressive and toxic components of liquid fuel (oxidizer, fuel and isopropyl nitrate), storage and refueling of which in the underdeck space is very fraught with serious consequences both for the ship itself and especially for personnel. Themselves imagine that the components of detection, guidance and coordinate systems of this complex, created on the basis of vacuum tubes, are also a rather cumbersome air defense system and could also fire in the "ground-to-surface" mode. At one time, in our press, they wrote about this cruiser: "Here on the roadstead there is the beauty and pride of our seas missile cruiser" Dzerzhinsky ", although we, air defense specialists, saw a certain sarcasm in this phrase. Therefore, an experiment using the S-75 Navy this experience and ended.
    The cruiser itself quickly became obsolete, was transferred to the category of training and was soon scrapped.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 21: 08
      +1
      Quote: berimor
      but very unaccomplished in ship armaments, since these missiles (the Americans called them in Vietnam - telegraph poles) were almost 11 m long

      these are the dimensions of Talos
      Quote: berimor
      worked on three very aggressive and toxic components of liquid fuel (oxidizing agent, fuel and isopropyl nitrate),

      That ass
      Quote: berimor
      an experimental SAM M-2 was mounted ... "
      M-2 is a sea-based S-75 air defense system and it was already far from experimental

      M-2 "Volkhov-M" was experimental. From the serial S-75 there were only missiles

      ps / I forgot something, I was too lazy to look for the exact photo and description of "Dzerzhinsky". he still has the 4th tower of the main building
  • Dr. Manoff
    Dr. Manoff 17 October 2013 15: 59
    +3
    Respect for the author smile
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 21: 04
      0
      Thank you, dear
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 17 October 2013 17: 30
    +1
    The best way for Americans to hit the first night with heavy and medium air defense systems. It is unlikely that the cruiser Kutuzov, having received a pair of Talos and Terriers, will retain his vision and hearing, or even explode; the destroyers will be over immediately. artillery will not have time to react, and without radars in the dark you will not shoot much
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 21: 03
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      the best way for Americans to hit the first night

      good

      this is the whole joke - who made the first move, he won. but the stakes are too high - the life of all mankind is at stake. No one dared to give an order

      Tutorial. American cruiser "Belknap" in section
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 October 2013 06: 12
        0
        A BOD Brave in the context there? The American turned out to be tenacious
        1. Santa Fe
          18 October 2013 15: 25
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          The American turned out to be tenacious

          Well compared

          At Valiant, detonation of 15 missiles - 6 tons of gunpowder and half a ton of explosives in the aft cellar. Behind the bulkhead of the affected compartment - RSL and 5 tons of kerosene for a helicopter. That's why he died, long and painfully

          Nothing like Belknap, the bridge and superstructure were destroyed, the ignition center was located at a distance of several compartments from the ammunition cellar (by the way, check out what kind of cardboard it is - such lining can be drilled up and down from Browning)

          ps / in this case, the frigate Strak looks best of all - the flame crept up to the bow rocket cellar, but there was no detonation, the ship was saved
  • Technologist
    Technologist 17 October 2013 18: 02
    0
    Informative and to some extent instructive, thanks.
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 17 October 2013 19: 29
    0
    And what kind of sunken ship near the rocks in the photo does anyone know?
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 20: 39
      +2
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      sunken ship near the rocks in the photo

      Former. flagship of the KSF, cruiser "Murmansk" (the same 68-bis) built in 1953

      The cruiser was sold to India for metal, but did not reach the final destination of the route - in 1994, when towed, it was thrown by a storm onto Norwegian cliffs. Old ship preferred suicide in return for shameful debriefing

      The sunken ship has become a tourist attraction. Now, alas, the Norwegians have dismantled it for metal

      Surrounded by artificial dams
  • moremansf
    moremansf 17 October 2013 19: 30
    +1
    The article is really interesting ... in the sixties, the consciousness and ideology were different and at that time it would not have been difficult for Soviet sailors to repeat the feat of the Varyag and the Koreyets, they were brought up that way ... Project 68bis light cruisers in those years formed the basis fleets of the USSR, in the Navy there were 14 units, but the Ordzhonikidze KRL in January 1960 was sold to Indonesia. Of the remaining 13, the Dzerzhinsky KRL, which directly took part in this event in the period from 1957 to 1958, was re-equipped according to the 70E project. The third turret of 152 mm guns was dismantled from it, 8 37-mm AU V-11 with a stern superstructure ... Instead of them, an experimental sample of the Volkhov air defense missile system was installed with a two-boom launcher, a cellar for 10 V-679 missiles, and the Corvette (C-75) control system to support the Kaktus and Razliv radars, i.e. The Russian squadron could, in addition to artillery weapons, oppose 10 missiles approximately similar to the American Talos, which also increased the firepower of our ships. This type of ships by that time was already obsolete, the development of fleets required ships of a different class. After the end of the Second World War, there was no need to protect their battleships from torpedo attacks from enemy destroyers, of course, there was no need to ensure the exit of their destroyers into a torpedo attack. The task of disrupting the enemy's sea communications also looked unrealistic - at times large artillery ships passed.
  • Strong
    Strong 17 October 2013 19: 39
    0
    So colorfully, Dr. Kaptsov fantasizes. As always poetic!

    It is as if the sharp taste of the Caribbean crisis from smart headquarters in the fleets had disappeared by the 69th year or there wasn’t such a crisis at all. It’s as if strategic submarine missile carriers under both flags do not go across the oceans, which can easily contribute to the heroic death of many more after such a dashing artduel.

    Why and were allowed cruisers with such good armament at a range of fire. Just watch each other.

    All some kind of comparison in a vacuum.
  • Strong
    Strong 17 October 2013 19: 46
    0
    Oleg, please try your pen on the 1986 alternate history of Libya. "Prairie Fire", "Eldorado Canyon" and more.

    It will be interesting to read. There were also aircraft carriers.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 October 2013 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: Fuerte
      Oleg, please try your pen on the 1986 alternate history of Libya. "Prairie Fire", "Eldorado Canyon" and more.

      A. This is an interesting topic.

      F-111 smashes the Libyan airfield with IL-76, which, according to the American command, was used by Gaddafi to supply terrorists and illegal gangs around the world
      1. Strong
        Strong 25 October 2013 21: 43
        0
        Dissemble slightly. In addition to Tripoli, objects in Benghazi and Sirte were also hit. Among other things, the air defense system was suppressed. In addition, strikes were made on the ships of the Libyan Navy.

        And this was all done by the same "Aardvarks"?
  • moremansf
    moremansf 17 October 2013 19: 46
    +2
    In reality, the Pr68bis cruisers had only two tasks: mine laying and fire assistance for the amphibious assault landing and their support on the shore. But missile cruisers pr 58 of the "Grozny" type, also a participant in this event, there were only 2 units, 2 in the Black Sea Fleet (Grozny, Golovko) and 2 in the Pacific Fleet (Fokin, Varyag), constantly two RRC pr 58 could not be on the BS, they alternated , as well as anti-ship missiles pr 1123 "Moscow" and "Leningrad". KRL pr 68bis were the most massive ships of that time with proven tactics of use and crews. The result of a combat clash could be assessed based on the ideological training of personnel, crew coherence and, finally, on the will of the high command of both countries on the priority of giving the order to start hostilities ... the advantage of an aircraft carrier in its aviation, I personally witnessed when 60 aircraft were lifted into the air from AB "America in 67 minutes, an unforgettable sight ... Whoever launched the first preemptive strike, then there was most likely a victory ... plus morale crews.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 October 2013 20: 53
    +1
    The situation described in the article is almost repeated off the Syrian coast. The combat and striking power of the Russian squadron in comparison with the NATO ships is small. BUT, adversaries are unlikely to risk it in practice wink
    1. killganoff
      killganoff 17 October 2013 21: 58
      +2
      It makes no sense to align the USSR Ocean Atomic Missile Navy with the Russian coastal flotilla.
      In those years, any of our OPEsk outstripped the entire current Navy in terms of quality and numbers ... Apart from the show, nothing remained. If it were strength, Muammar Gaddafi would still be in power.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 October 2013 20: 53
    -1
    The situation described in the article is almost repeated off the Syrian coast. The combat and striking power of the Russian squadron in comparison with the NATO ships is small. BUT, adversaries are unlikely to risk it in practice wink
  • old man54
    old man54 18 October 2013 03: 47
    +2
    Good article, big "+" for Oleg and respect for his work! good It was pleasant to read, interesting, much more than when for some reason he "got into" the aviation topic and started trolling our air defense! wink
    I will allow myself to add something:
    Quote: author
    There was a special version of Talos in a nuclear version - such a missile was supposed “Clear” the beach before landing in the third world war.

    not only, Oleg. The main idea of ​​the Talos nuclear submarine is to repel the massive attack of supersonic anti-ship missiles on the compound, such as, for example, the Kh-22. Otherwise, the Yankees then could not bring them down, with their insane speeds, especially in the case of a group all-aspect raid!
    Thank you for the article, well done! good
  • Vasily Klopkov
    Vasily Klopkov 18 October 2013 23: 14
    -1
    Thanks to the author! The article is very interesting! Still, our Russian-Soviet sailors have always been heroes. Yes, and Colonel Gaddafi, too, was a guy not a miss. It is a pity that after the collapse of the USSR no one helped him. But they could, as then back in 1969 ...
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 19 October 2013 10: 23
    -1
    how to get the whole nation to wear coffee to US marines, staged a revolution
  • Witold
    Witold 21 October 2013 23: 33
    -2
    The author of the article is diagnosed with a squirrel.