Military Review

Armor blast

121

Why on modern ships do not install armor?


No, I know, of course, that in some places something is protected by something — such as Kevlar defense of vertical launchers. But I mean reservation in the traditional sense of an entire century of armored shipbuilding, from the 50s of the 19th century to the 50s of the XXth century. Protection of the waterline, boiler rooms and engine rooms, artillery, military logging, chimney bases ... Zone belt armor, armor deck, towers, casemates, casings, glacis ...

Why do not book ships with a displacement of 7-10 thousand tons - this is the displacement of a modern large destroyer or a normal size cruiser? 100 years ago it was quite the average displacement of an armored cruiser - and they were given armor, which in some places had to keep hits from 6-, or even 8-inch projectiles! This is a very large kinetic energy, which means a penetrating force.

So why now do not put? At least against the usual 5-inch? Or - why not? - against cruise missiles?

I had a discussion on this topic on bwana after the year before last, by the Navy Day, I had posted a huge photo report on the Sea Salon in St. Petersburg. Let me, in the order of a rare deviation from the general order, give a link to this report; I remember, I did it (and three announcements to it on different resources) almost the whole day ...

Here you go; and there in the comments I was asked a simple question? Why don't ships book now? Like, what, the sword finally defeated the shield?

I answered: what is there! Five inches of armor - and "Harpoon" you are not afraid! However, they do not book.

And what, they ask me, maybe the armor will withstand an explosion of 165 kg of explosives, but the bulkheads inside the hull will be broken? Explosion - is it not more powerful than the kinetic energy of the projectile?

... I told this background with two goals. First, to preface the topic in general - in the sense where it came from. Secondly, in order to explain where the figure 165 kg came from, which appears at the very beginning of the article. She came from the question, and the questioner took it from the report, where I commemorate the English ships sunk by the Exocet cruise missiles in the Falklands War; 165 kg is the weight of the warhead of the Exocset.

I answered questions, of course, in bwana - it was 2011 a year! - and now I am going to simply transfer here these my response articles. For they have a completely independent meaning, and I spent a lot of work. The reviews were good; I hope you enjoy it.

And also - Mr. Observer, I think, will not deprive us of his attention, and from his comments we, including myself, will find out a lot of interesting things.

The answer to the above questions has decomposed into three topics. Today I give the first topic: discuss the explosion on the armor.

***

Let's talk now about today's realities. And they are such that most types of RCC in the world are subsonic. We will talk about them, especially since we have already taken the Exocset as an example. And they did not take it for nothing: it is one of the most widespread PKR in the world.

Pay attention: not 165 kg, but 50 kg are jerked on the armor. It is exactly the amount of explosives contained in the 165-kilogram warhead of the Exocset anti-ship missiles. This is about half of the weight of the explosives in the Soviet FAB-250 aerial bomb. For FAB-100, I did not find the corresponding digit; but we also need a qualitative assessment, and not a thorough calculation? Therefore, we first say that the explosive in Exoset is slightly larger than FAB-100, and then we neglect this “a little”.

And then you can go back to World War II and ask yourself: what will happen if the FAB-100 explodes, for example, on the armor belt of an American cruiser of the famous type “Cleveland”?

I chose Cleveland because their belt was just an 5-inch.

And nothing with a belt will not be. Under the belt the frames and stringers will be bent at a length of about ten meters; there will be water involved in the impact, which has experienced a mighty shock from the explosion. Can and punch a hole with a diameter of one and a half. Now, if it is “below the belt,” then the hole will be big, but we are not talking about that, we are discussing an explosion in the armor. Above the belt there will be slight damages, maybe the nearby air-carrying unit, a boat, will demolish; but nothing terrible will happen. Because the air strike and, THANKS TO THE ARMOR, the wave will go up, sweeping the deck only with a “side lobe of the radiation pattern”.

The worst thing is when FAB-100 strikes the side or deck; something like that, as we agreed, and the “Exochet”, which got into the aglitsky destroyer “Sheffield”, showed up. They could not save him, although they tried for a long time.

Let's check the kinetic energy.

The distance from which the Cleveland armor could keep hitting its own 6-inch projectile, according to calculations, was 47 cable, that is, 8,7 km. I don't know the weights of the Cleveland 6-inch cannon, let's take the Soviet B-38 of the same caliber. Her projectile weighs 55 kg and flies out of the barrel at a speed of 950 m / s. Assume that while flying on 8,7 km, 250 m / s will be lost; such a loss is even excessive if we consider that the B-38 shot at 30 km. That is, the projectile will arrive at a speed of 700 m / s, and its kinetic energy will be 13 475 000 kgm. Reluctance to count in joules, and to anything: we need a comparison, not an absolute value.

"Exochet" flies at a transonic speed; Take 300 m / s, although, in my opinion, this is a bit too much. We already know the mass of warheads, and I would not take the rest into account: the strength of a rocket is calculated to be sufficient for flight, and not for breaking through obstacles; warheads punches them. Therefore, there are no armor-piercing or high-explosive anti-ship missiles, but there are anti-shipbreakers with armor-piercing, high-explosive all sorts of other warheads. And, if the rocket meets not with the 19-millimeter board of “Sheffield”, but with some concrete or with Krupp armor, it will all be doubted and flattened, and the strike will be determined by the warhead.

So, 300 m / s and 165 kg give us energy 7 425 000 kgm. That is almost half the size of the 152-mm projectile.

Will not break. So, there will be an EXPLOSION ON THE WALL, and we have already said what it means for the ship.

Based on the foregoing, I confidently declare: if the Exochet got into 5-inch armor, Her Majesty the Sheffield ship would not even lose its combat capability. Although after the battle it, of course, would have to be repaired.

I will not find the source now, but I remember how the Americans rejoiced when in 1980-s they removed their battleships from conservation and put "Harpoons" and anti-ship "Tomahawks" on them! Because they had ships that themselves would sink someone, but no one at all. For, the Americans said, the battleship is invulnerable to missiles, and guns that could break it have been around for twenty years now like no one else.

And that's right. The four battleships, which survived to the 1980-x, was the last series of American battleships, in which the experience of the Second World War was already taken into account. Therefore, they defended themselves from aerial bombs. The system of their armor decks was designed to ensure that a 1500-kg bomb dropped from a height of 9 km (30 000 feet) would not penetrate vital centers.

I don’t remember exact numbers, but the order is this. I think a bomb dropped from 9 km is flying not much slower than Exochet. And 1500 kg, as you can easily see, is much more than 165 kg.

That is, the battleships were invulnerable from above.

Another thing is that invulnerability is understood here in a special way. Of course, if we dump half a hundred bombs on the deck exactly, the ship will not be well. There will be no fire control devices, anti-aircraft guns, the stroke will fall because of the broken pipes ... again, they are killing people ...

By the way, the kamikazes also got into the battleships, and this is a good analogy of a cruise missile. So what? They damaged 15 battleships, but not one of them was drowned. Here, look:

"January 6 The 1945 battleship (New Mexico, auth. Note) was damaged by a kamikaze, under repair until March 1945."

Quoted from the Encyclopedia of the ships www.warfleet.ru.

So, two months in repair. More precisely, less, because Well, it was necessary to reach the base.

And sunk the kamikaze 45 ships, mostly destroyers. That is, unbroken.

Well, that's enough. I summarize my assessment: an explosion on the armor of the anti-ship missile unit will give less damage than an 6-inch projectile that exploded where it is necessary INSIDE the ship. Not only where, but where necessary.

Don't forget the blast ON THE ARMOR! And then consider me an idiot ...

***

“Australia” in our picture is a heavy cruiser of interwar English construction. Not even a battleship. More precisely, four times less than the same "New Mexico" and with an armored deck of the entire 37 mm. And what could kamikazdze do with him? Uvaga: do not judge the roll through the pipes, they have the type of "Kent", which includes "Australia", bent back. So roll less than you might think, looking at the pipe. It is, in fact, almost none.

But that's not the point. Put a picture in order to show what an explosion OUTSIDE. If the same kamikaze had fallen steeply from above, he would have punched 37 millimeters, and then the cruiser would have had difficulty. After all, even the seediest kamikaze is, like, FAB-500 ...

***


In this second half of the article we will see a) what an attempt to book a modern ship will cost and b) why is it still so hard, this shipboard electronics, after all, the persona is so easy!

I believe you, since you say that you have just read the first half of the article. But if you do not speak, or speak, but did not read, then I persistently advise you to read. And in general, I advise you to start with the first article of this mini-series.

We started by wondering why ships are not booking today.

The question can be clarified as follows: why not start putting armor on ships? Today, after several decades have not been set; but, since it can save from anti-ship missiles ...

The final answer should be formed at the end of this mini-series, that is, after the next article, which I hope to make last. And now we look at why the reservation was refused then - during the years of the technical revolution on navywhen rocket ships went en masse weapon and its accompanying electronics. And not only his attendant.

I must say that the first victim of electronics was not armor. She was the speed.

In the middle of 1930, the French leader of the destroyers Le Terribl (he is in the first picture) set the world speed record for warships of the main classes - the 45,03 node. Italians also greatly appreciated this quality in all warships, our leader "Tashkent", built by them, developed to the 42,5 node. And about our own "Leningrad", also a leader, they write that its maximum was the 43 node.

The Americans were chasing less speed, first of all they needed a range, primarily for the Pacific Ocean. But their pre-war destroyers of the “Glivs” type (in the ranks of the 1940) developed 37,4 ties.


I can not, put "Glivs", although a direct relationship to the topic, he does not have. But what a handsome man, huh ?! I remembered him from childhood, when I, in the 8 class, from a classmate, the son of the admiral, got a “look at” book - translation of the Jane's fighting ships directory, edition of 1965 of the year. And - chipboard! Who does not know: the stamp "for official use". Then the Glivsy was still in service with the US Navy, it was the oldest type of destroyer that remained at that time in the US Navy formation.

By the way, to our discussion with the Observer in the comments to the “Friendly on the River”: the deck-guided torpedo tubes were not removed from it ...

The next type, “Fletcher” ... Let's put the “Fletcher” type too, it is also classically beautiful:


Fletcher was nothing, too: the 36,5 node. This is 1942, it’s already clear that the main struggle of the Americans is in the Pacific, the distance is needed like air ... Then they descended to 35 nodes and were going to gain a foothold there: 1950 hubs, aircraft carriers, though the destroyers could accompany them though would be in calm weather.

They wanted, but could not. Could not, despite the fact that in power plants there was significant progress. I will not describe the increase in steam parameters and so on, take my word for it.

Could not, because flooded anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles and related electronics.

And now the first special type of missile destroyer, “Charles F. Adams” (1960), has an 33 node (it has 1 PU-ZUR, 1 PU-anti-submarine). His successor in the Spruyens high-volume construction is the 32,5 node. The heir of "Spuyens", today's main type of "Orly Burke" (1988 g.) - 32 node.

The Spruences and Burkes are too well known, and I will put Adams on:


As you can see, the speeds have stabilized. Less can not, indeed no one will be accompanied by carrier strike connections.

My estimate. If a ship with a modern composition of weapons, say, with the same one as the Burke, try to book ... so, what type of booking are we talking about? Undefined; then we will reflect on the ideology of armor protection of the end of the Second World War. That is the time when it, protection, ended.

Serious booking is 20% displacement. The total displacement of the "Burks" is 8448 tons. 20% - 2100 tons. But add:

- an increase in the weight of the hull structures to provide the displacement gain necessary for the weight of the armor;

- increase the power of the power plant to maintain speed;

- increase in fuel reserves to maintain the cruising range;

And we get not 20%, and all 50. If not more.

And nobody will give it. Such surface ships, so that 13 thousand tonnes of displacement, except aircraft carriers and various landing options, have not been built for a long time. Long time ago, since they were afraid of nuclear weapons. They were frightened and decided that the combat potential should be dispersed. That large ships now do not need to build. Unless when it is otherwise impossible, as in the case of aircraft carriers and amphibious-staff ship-helicopter "Mistral".

Well, except perhaps for our giants of the type "Peter the Great". But “Peter” is a special article, it became so big because of a concept that was not born of a good life ... Let's not talk about Peter.

***

A few words about the fact that, sitting at a modern personal, it is difficult to imagine how this electronics can be heavy. And now - not about antennas and rooms, but directly about electronics. I saw a lot of it (and did it too) for my 30-year engineering life.

What is a personalka? The personal computer is an unreserved computer with a limited set of external devices, designed for room operation conditions.

Onboard electronics should be:

Reserved, this is the first. That is, we do not have one set of processor, power supply, etc., but three, four.

Vibration and shock resistant. This forces boards to be made with a thick metal frame, and blocks with thick walls, at least some. Put the PC on the stand, and it will crumble when vibrations, scatter when hit.

Can you imagine what requirements for shock resistance are imposed on the electronics of a ship, which not only waves, but also missiles with rockets will knock on board?

It also makes you give up on frivolous ways of installation, flat connectors - put the PC on the shaker, in 10 minutes the mother will crawl out of the slots. And in an hour it will come out for sure. And failures due to “flickering contact” will begin even earlier.

Requirements for temperature conditions. Because of them, in particular, the most advanced processors, the most closely packed BISAs, cannot be used in on-board electronics. Well, and more metal in the unit itself - to transfer heat to the hull structures. True, the latter relates primarily to space applications.

Requirements for resistance to different nasty environments for the sea is very important. Shielding requirements in terms of electromagnetic compatibility with other equipment. And not a cactus on the monitor. Requirements for radiation resistance.

There are also different requirements that are written in State Standards for testing onboard equipment.

That is why the unit of onboard electronic equipment by itself, without external strapping, will weigh many times more than the person.

But do not forget about power. If you want to emit megawatts in an impulse, you first, before it reaches the antenna, have to pass this power through the circuits in the radar electronic blocks. If you have an automatic antenna post stabilizer, then at the output of an elegant stabilization circuit, a sort of small block, you need to put an amplifier that inflates the control signal to kilowatts, which are necessary for powerful and fast (i.e., doubly powerful) tracking drives.

That is why some units of the ship electronics do not need to be compared with the personnel.

Finally, do not forget about the number. Now electronics is everywhere, in the galley, and then electronics. On a large ship, probably, there are hundreds of places where there are screens, consoles and keyboards, and maybe more than a hundred.

Probably enough? Well, I'm going to set an example for example, and so clearly.

And so much. Wow a short post ... I finish.

***

I want to say where the numbers and a couple of pictures come from - now it will be clear what we are talking about.

At the same time, the same son of the admiral approximately gave me a look at the most memorable book: “Missile carrier ships”, published in 1967 year. This book came to me at the most wonderful age, when knowledge is absorbed, like ... yes, now it is much worse with this ...

How much I learned from this book! There, after all, it is told literally about every type of ship built as a rocket ship or converted into one. Of course, there was nothing about the socialist ships, but the capitalist ones were abundantly enough.

Everything was there, including issues of floodability and propulsion system characteristics. All the missiles, their guidance patterns, the characteristics of guns and torpedoes, and jet bomb bombers, and ... yes, you can see from the article what was there. Even an analysis of combat damage to ships in World War II, and - by class.

Although, of course, not all the information given in the article is taken from that book.

That is, not exactly the one from the same. I gave that book. And then he found the same in the library of his red-flagged, red-flagged order of Patrice Lumumba of the missile battalion!

I stole it - for two years I could be sure that nobody goes to the library, neither the fighters nor the officers. And the conscience is soothed by the fact that the division was soon disbanded and dismantled - the two-year-olds who succeeded me did not have time to serve their time.

See, now it comes in handy. I stole a few more books there ...

***

Summary. The need to have rocket weapons and powerful electronic equipment for control and weapons, and all the rest, was the cause that displaced the armor “from the inside”. I mean, from inside this ship, which hypothetically could be armored. That is, they have become the reason why the ship cannot be, cannot be booked.

It remains for us to see what causes ousted it "from the outside." That is for what reasons the ship and do not need to book.

Does she need armor?

In the first part, we figured out that even not too thick armor, such as cruising, is fully capable of protecting the protected volume from being hit by a subsonic anti-ship missile - which missiles are now in the majority in the world.

The second part is that the armor does not allow the missile weapons from the ships, from which it could help, and the associated electronics. With the clarification that electronics is connected not only with weapons, but also in general with the functioning of the ship as a craft and as a combat unit.

Now - the last aspect: is it necessary, armor, today's ship.

Basis of consideration - and what, actually, armor protects?

Armor protects a floating unit. The unit drowned in that water is not needed by anyone. The unit, not drowned, but ceased to be a combat, is also not needed by anyone.

Well, that is, maybe, then it will come in handy - to repair, there, or disassemble the metal. But the designer, when developing a ship and putting armor on it, wants to preserve not only and not so much vitality, but - combat survivability.

And look. An example is on favorite material, on Tsushima.

Head Japanese “Mikasa” received more than 40 hits, from the bottom of 10 - the main, 12-inch caliber and 22 - auxiliary, 6-inch.

The main belt was not broken - though, I don’t know whether there were any hits in it. The battleship took a lot of water, but all this amount came into the holes of the upper, 6-inch belt. Be that as it may, with the unbeaten main belt, Mikasa remained a floating unit.

The armor was less thick on it, and it made its way repeatedly, but this whole heap of shells was able to disable only one 6-inch gun. That is, "Mikasa" was preserved as a combat unit. There was a gap of one 12-inch gun from his own projectile, which exploded in the barrel, but we do not consider this.

Armor blast

Here is “Mikasa” with a hole in the casemate armor


Russian ships turned over and sank - for example, Oslyabya, Borodino. But - again, not from breaking through the main belt. “Oslabyu” was summed up by a weak attachment of armor plates in the bow: when they hit, they didn’t break through, but they were pressed into the board, destroying the structure, and when they were hit again, they broke down, and then a hole was formed so ...

Borodino received a fatal hit - in the cellar of the 6-inch tower - obviously, through the deck, because the cellar is below the waterline. The cellar exploded, the ship quickly sank.

An important circumstance explaining why our battleships sank with an impassable belt: they were very heavily overloaded, first during construction, and therefore as a result of the adoption of excess coal reserves for long-distance transport. Therefore, they had the upper edge of the main belt located prohibitively close to the surface of the water, which willingly entered the compartments through the holes that came over the belt.

They will say to me: by the end of his life’s journey, “Prince Suvorov” had lost almost all artillery, while remaining afloat. But four Japanese battleships fired at Suvorov! The number of hits of 12- and 6-inch projectiles is estimated to be about 100! You know, citizens, if you dig and peck, then you can also make a hole with a concrete wall, think of Count Montecristo. Yes, and suffered "Suvorov" most of all from fires in unarmored superstructures, which spread and caused various internal explosions.

By the way, this will be a confirmation of what I am going to say below.

Okay, stop being distracted. I would like to say with the example of “Mikasy” that adequate booking could save the ship of the classical artillery era both as a floating unit and as a combat one.

***

Another important aspect is fire control. Even the most important, in the reasoning of what I want to substantiate.

By Tsushima on the ships were already large rangefinders and technical means for centralized control of shooting. But, in general, they appeared relatively recently. A shoot the ships with guns were able for a long time; how were you aiming? It is clear as: individually.
And this possibility of individual aiming of artillery installations was always preserved, and in Tsushima, and further, until today.

For example, look at the section of the tower of the armored cruiser Bayan:


See the tube on top of the trunk, looking into the embrasure? This is a sight, with the large cannons of the Kane system - and these are the Kanet 203-mm cannons - there were two sights, to the right and left of the axial plane of the cannon.

The same unfortunate Suvorov, in which literally 10 minutes after the start of the shooting, the negotiation pipes, signal halyards, and firing devices in the conning tower were broken, so that the command simply did not have the ability to control the shooting; "Suvorov", however, shot to the very tragic end.

Private summary №1.

Armor on the ships of the artillery era has justified itself as a means of preserving the SMOKING AND SAFETY of the ship. Because of it, and did not refuse to the very end of this era.

***

Do you understand what I want to say?

But what to say, you look. This is what the kamikaze did with the American destroyer Hazlewood:


No shisha left a whole on the deck. Although the ship, as you can see, is afloat. And maybe something ahead remains. “Hezzlvud” is a type of “Fletcher” (it was mentioned in the previous post of this topic, there is a photo), he has on his nose two single-deck 127-mm installations. Perhaps these installations even retained combat capability.

We remember that we agreed to assume that a kamikaze with a bomb suspended by 500-kg is a good analogue (not to say, a prototype; it is somehow cynical ...) of a subsonic anti-ship missile.

So I put one under the other two wonderful (for the purposes of this article) photo. At the top - the famous English destroyer "Sheffield" with its famous hole in the board from the famous anti-ship missile "Exochet", obtained in the famous Falklands War. And on the bottom - the little-known American destroyer “Sterret” (or “Sterret”?) With a little-known hole in the board from an unknown kamikaze, received in a battle unknown to me.




It looks like, huh?

Returning to the deck of the unfortunate "Hazlewood." We understand that on a modern ship such an explosion would have destroyed all or almost all of the antenna posts. And there would be nothing:

- manage anti-ship missiles;

- control anti-aircraft missiles;

- to give target designation to small-caliber rapid-fire anti-aircraft artillery complexes such as, for example, Vulcan Falans, that is, those who defend the ship from enemy missiles. And this ZAK itself would be demolished, because it is installed as high as possible above the deck;

- to give target designation of the nasal artillery mount, even if it remained intact.

And there would be nothing to extract information for their combat information and control system, and there would be nothing to communicate with the interacting forces ... In short, the ship as a combat unit comes to an end.

And all this will happen to him, even if his waterline is protected by armor, invulnerable to PKRs. And the antenna posts cannot be protected by armor; by definition, it is shielded. It is impossible even to protect with it the structures on which these posts are installed - it will be such an “upper weight” that the ship will turn over even before launching into the water.

Actually, this is a private summary number 2.

Even if there were reserves of weight for the installation of armor on the waterline of modern destroyers, frigates and corvettes, this, giving the chances of preserving the FLOW, would not provide even a ghostly hope of preserving BOE. That, given the transience of modern electronic-missile combat, is completely unacceptable.

We don’t need such hockey ...

***

And one more note.

In the discussion on this topic on the old blog there was, among others, the opinion that it was the introduction of rocket weapons that led to the abandonment of armor on ships.

I disagree with that.

Where was the armor in the middle of the twentieth century?

On the destroyers, the displacement of which already sometimes went beyond the figure of 3000 tons, it was not. On smaller ships - especially, except for special "kids" such as armored boats. On sea ships, the installation of armor began with the class of cruisers, and the classic cruiser of the mid-twentieth century - these are at least 8000 tons of displacement.

Of course, the armor was on the battleships. Moreover, new and relatively new battleships - in fact, all those that were built "from scratch" in the interwar period, were already counting on confronting not only projectiles, but also bombs. That is, they had not relatively thin armor decks, which should cause the ricochet of a projectile to pierce a thin armored or unarmored board, but decks that are thick enough to withstand a heavy bomb dropped from a great height — I wrote about this in the first part.

On the last American battleships - the type "Iowa" - the total thickness of the decks, and several decks were reserved, reached 216 mm.


BB-61 USS Iova


As we have already found out, a subsonic cruise missile with the most common types of warhead will not penetrate such armor. If PCRs appeared at the time when the “Iowa” went out into the ocean, it would instantly be revealed that the armor serves against them no worse than they do against bombs and kamikazes.

Carriers also booked. The last ships of this class, which had time to go on the water at the very end of the war - the type “Midway” - had three armored decks, the total thickness of which reached 187 mm. By the way, to have an idea: the armor of only the upper flight deck (87 mm) weighed ... 3650 tons!

They even had a belt, and more abruptly than heavy cruisers: 193 mm.

That is, armor flourished on heavy ships, and it would not have been removed, and it was not removed — neither when the artillery cruisers were converted into missile cruisers (with missiles), nor was the withdrawal of American battleships from 1980's from conservation. However, I already wrote about this.

However, on newly built ships, with a rare and ineffective exception, no armor was placed. By a low-impact exception, I mean, for example, English cruisers of the “Tiger” type, the first of which was commissioned in the 1959 year. They had armor of maximum thickness 89 mm (3,5 inches); but they were laid back in 1942 year! In 1946, construction was frozen, then it was defrosted - they wanted to make missile of them, but they could not make rockets. And they entered service as pure artillery ships, but then it was already strange, and soon they were converted into cruiser-helicopter carriers, and still their age was short.

Also to exceptions, I include our rather big series of domestic post-war artillery cruisers; but our business, as already mentioned, is a special article ... And, by the way, they were no longer built in the middle of the 1950's, making a little more than half the planned amount.

So, on more than the overwhelming number of ships built in 1950's, no armor was placed.

But not because they were frightened by anti-ship missiles, about which at that time in the West only a small number of specialized specialists had heard.

This is what they were afraid of:


Here is what:

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that in this picture, at the right cut of the post, there is a Japanese battleship. Only they had such peculiar tower-like superstructures.

But, in general, all the same. Battleship, be it at least Japanese, at least some - it's about 200 meters of length ...

After the accumulation of a certain number of atomic bombs on the planet, the domination of a strategy of massive retaliation was established, which did not imply any other war between the main opponents except the general nuclear one. The strategy of flexible response, which replaced it at the beginning of 1960-s in the context of atomic weapons, differed only in that a different “level” of atomic war was allowed.

Nobody doubted that the war “between the main ones” would be atomic.

As in the fact that the anti-ship weapon will become atomic. And it has become, and we, and they. What is the Lulu depth bomb (USA) with the equivalent of 11 kilotons - not much less than Hiroshima ... But it was equipped with anti-ship missiles of the ASROK complex with a range of only 14 km!

However, the same warhead was used in the Astor torpedo and in the Hotkop Mk-105 aerial bomb ... Well, and ours, with our relative weakness on the seas, in general, God himself commanded. To fly as part of a link of some Tu-16K-16, fly through all obstacles with at least one plane to the aircraft carrier connection and then launch a pair of missiles with a conventional warhead ?! Well, it is unlikely ... And we had nuclear torpedoes - the famous T-5; I'm not talking about bombs.

In general, in the 1950s, everyone was sure that the war at sea would also be atomic. And so they decided - the time of large ships has passed. I already wrote about this in this series. The combat potential must be dispersed among as many carriers as possible of the smallest displacement — in order to limit one-time damage from an enemy nuclear strike.

***

Everything, arguing is completed. It is clear that no armor will save from kilotons. It is clear that it is necessary to build relatively small ships, in which the displacement will have a much more practical use than spending it on completely useless armor. It is clear that the only thing that can be done is to try to destroy the carrier of atomic weapons, for which early detection and sufficiently long-range guided missiles are possible. That is powerful electronics.

After a period of “defusing international tensions” of the mid-1970s, despite the rather return of this very intensity, the atomic strain began to subside. It became clear that collisions with the use of "conventional" weapons are possible even between major rivals ... but it was too late.

It was too late to return the armor. Electronics in all its forms became absolutely necessary for the combat, and non-combat activities of any ship. She supplanted the armor due to the occupation of those scales that could be occupied by armor. And the cost of "electronic" ships has grown so much that the displacement limit has also got a financial justification - large ships need to be built only for those that cannot be small.

But this is a looping. This has already happened.

For complete looping - here you are once again the unfortunate Sheffield.


Only a rocket, unlike the very first photo, has already flown to it ...
Author:
Originator:
http://vremena.takie.org/
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. fzr1000
    fzr1000 13 January 2014 10: 07
    +5
    Interesting article. Maybe the Yankees' asymmetric response would be to build small battleships with air defense systems and anti-ship missiles? Not at all special on this topic.
  2. Nayhas
    Nayhas 13 January 2014 10: 13
    +10
    Wow! ... Thought Oleg Kaptsov continues his theme, but here a completely arched look, quite reasoned, brave!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 49
      +6
      Thank you for not forgetting

      Today I uploaded similar material to VO, even some of the pictures coincided!
      Mystic? request

      http://topwar.ru/38265-polet-v-odin-konec-razrushitelnaya-mosch-kamikadze.html
    2. invisibility
      invisibility 13 January 2014 18: 37
      +3
      Always delights when a great, thorough work has been done!
  3. Net
    Net 13 January 2014 10: 26
    +4
    What to take as an example of Exocet, if by that time there was no armor on the ships? Let's take some of the first examples of our anti-ship missiles. The same P-15 "Termit", the mass of the warhead is 10 times more than 500 kg, the speed is 320 m / s, and the warhead itself is high-explosive cumulative. Rather than relying on armor, it is better to use electronic warfare and air defense systems.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 29
      +3
      Quote: Netto
      The same P-15 "Termit", the mass of the warhead is 10 times more than 500 kg, the speed is 320 m / s and the warhead itself is a high-explosive cumulative

      at a starting weight of 2 tons (media restriction)
      and max. launch range 40 km (which further limited the use of Termite - the carrier will fail before it has time to reach the distance of attack. Eilat’s drowning and raid on Karachi is not an indicator here - the enemy was obviously rotten)

      In general, the situation is as follows:
      there are small anti-ship missiles (launch weight 600 ... 700 kg, subsonic speed) - these are the missiles that most of the world's fleets are armed with, incl. USA and NATO. Examples - French Exocet, American Harpoon, Swedish NSM, Japanese Type 90, Russian X-55 Uranus, Chinese Yingji, Israeli Gabriel, BGM-109B TASM can also be referred to this

      Thanks to their compactness, these missiles are extremely massive and ubiquitous - practically any ships (from a boat to a battleship), aircraft (several fighter-bombers can take several at once!) Can serve as their carriers; from trailers and shelters - how much imagination the developers have enough.











      And there is a Soviet rocket school - super-heavy anti-ship missiles - Amethyst, Granite, Basalt, Mosquito, Onyx, Russian-Indian Bramos, Caliber (Club) ... Features - huge size and cost, starting weight - from 3 to 7 tons, in most cases supersonic sound, heavy warheads and increased firing range (to 600 km).

      The hit of such a "blank" will not withstand any armor. Another thing is that the chance of encountering such a missile is small. There are only a few carriers for these monsters (before there were dozens, but this is still too few).

      So the Russian Navy has a reason for installing armor on its ships. The fleets of Western countries also have a need for such protection - these guys often fight in local wars. It is impossible to meet P-700 Granite, but Chinese Inji can fly out from behind each bush. The consequences are obvious.

      10-meter P-700 weighing 7 tons. Where to start such a fool from?
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 January 2014 14: 58
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The hit of such a "blank" will not withstand any armor

        Looking at what angle it is hospitable to get such a gift. And there will be a huge chance that the warhead will work from the outside of the ship, and a large amount of energy will explode in space, rather than explode deep inside.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 13 January 2014 15: 12
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          And there will be a huge chance that the warhead will work from the outside of the ship, and a large amount of energy will explode in space, and will not explode deep inside.

          request

          BCH GRANITE
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 January 2014 15: 19
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            War Harpoon

            Are you sure that the harpoon? And still does not change the possibility of an explosion on the armor, and the form and asks for a rebound, especially when the soft head part contributes to the U-turn.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 13 January 2014 15: 48
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Are you sure the harpoon?

              http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-398.html
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 January 2014 15: 49
                +1
                Harpoon Granite?
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 13 January 2014 16: 15
                  +1
                  Typo on Freud - you see which post at the top dedicated to these babies
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 January 2014 16: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Typo by Freud

                    ))))))))))
              2. Kars
                Kars 13 January 2014 15: 52
                +1
                sorry physicist I am weak - how to calculate the collision at an angle of 30 degrees - as warhead will come.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 January 2014 16: 01
        +1
        Norwegian NSM, not Swedish.

        the Swedes, by the way, were the second after us to construct the anti-ship missiles (RB 04) - only 600 kg, warhead 300 kg. Intended for our cruisers
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 13 January 2014 17: 24
      +1
      Quote: Netto
      What to take for example Exocet

      On hearing this RCC, they only rumored that she drowned Sheffield without destroying her warhead. Enough to just hit!
      wink
      1. alex86
        alex86 13 January 2014 20: 50
        +3
        As far as I remember, by the time it hit, the fuel had not burned out and it was burning out, already stuck in Sheffield, and given some "cardboardness", especially of the internal bulkheads, that was enough.
      2. yehat
        yehat 14 January 2014 15: 17
        +1
        Exoset is approximately equal to the harpoon. This is a symbol, not a specific rocket.
        For example, the permanent SMALL US squadron in the Mediterranean has more than a hundred harpoons in service.
        Therefore, protection against this kind of defeat is relevant.
        If you introduce armor, then the rocket penetrating it should increase by 2 times,
        which means that half of NATO carriers will never take it on board.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  4. jjj
    jjj 13 January 2014 10: 29
    +3
    There is a "galosh" and, once, within a radius of hundreds of miles on all ships, electronics fail. And such a fleet immediately becomes unnecessary to anyone. But humanely, the crews are safe
  5. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 13 January 2014 10: 49
    +2
    Thanks, read with interest.
  6. kirgudu
    kirgudu 13 January 2014 11: 13
    +1
    Useful information, only smeared well with a very thin layer in the spirit of Tolstoy.
    1. Jin
      Jin 13 January 2014 16: 45
      +3
      Quote: kirgudu
      Useful information, only smeared well with a very thin layer in the spirit of Tolstoy.


      I won't say about Tolstoy, but the author is one-sided about Tsushima. He pays all attention to booking and "overloading with coal", but the "fatal", for the Russian squadron, was not armor, but just a shell! The Japanese stuffed with "Shimoza", upon breaking through, turned decks and casemates into mush, crippling and killing the crew, causing widespread fires! And ours made holes in the armor of the Japanese, therefore, having received such a colossal amount of damage, the same Mikasa, described by the author, lost one weapon and remained combat-ready!
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 January 2014 17: 22
        +1
        Quote: Jin
        it was not armor, but just a shell!

        There are opinions that the Japanese fired with ordinary armor-piercing shells - they would have won it faster. Indirectly, this affects the ease with which the Kronprinz inflicted fatal damage to the BR .. Glory ..
        1. yehat
          yehat 14 January 2014 15: 24
          0
          complete nonsense. I read manuals that taught Tsushima.
          It's not about the type of projectile, but about ballistics - that’s why the Japanese won the battle.
          They had heavy shells for firing at maximum range, and our fleet had light armor-piercing shells for direct fire at medium and short distances, which the yapes did not allow, skillfully using the advantage in speed and imposing the disadvantageous nature of the artillery duel. After Tsushima, our sailors revised the concept of artillery combat and the fleet already approached the First World War with the philosophy of a heavy projectile that flies in a canopy knows where it comes from. And the new battleships, which were built at the shipyards, had magnificent 406mm caliber guns that did not surpass ballistics even in the Second World War. And the Americans copied their technology to all their best battleships.
          1. Kars
            Kars 14 January 2014 17: 34
            +1
            Quote: yehat
            They had heavy shells for firing at maximum range,

            And that heavy shells have less armor-piercing? And the speeds there are comparable, despite the fact that the Japanese used either English guns or their licensed copies.
            Quote: yehat
            revised the concept of artillery combat

            I don’t know why they came to the battle in a mine artillery position. I didn’t notice anything special. Besides the full armor belt. Even if it’s thin to protect it from land mines.

            And if the manuals read how many Eagle got hits in the side armor which HE shells did not penetrate, but would have pierced armor-piercing.
            Quote: yehat
            had magnificent guns of 406mm caliber, which did not surpass ballistics even in the second world. And the Americans copied their technology to all their best battleships.

            It would be interesting to find out how the Americans copied what existed in one experimental sample? And the Americans got the 4906 mm gun before the First World War, and the first ship with them was taken to 1921

            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk1.htm

            And they copied
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_16-45_m1914.htm
            16 "/ 45 (40.6 cm) Vickers Pattern
            16 "/ 45 (40.6 cm) Plan 1914
            406 mm / 45 (16 ") Plan 1914
            or
            Russia
            406 mm / 50 (16 ") B-37 Sample 1937
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_16-50_m1937.htm
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 13 January 2014 17: 27
        +2
        Quote: Jin
        getting such a huge amount of damage

        Penetration of armor does not mean an explosion of ammunition. Given shit fuses (or shit stuffing) it is not surprising that the Japanese got holes. Yes, and few of these numbers, there were much fewer ships on dr. If Mikas got a hundred armor-piercing, he would go to feed the fish. In all subsequent armor-piercing shells were used in the battles; 1-2 successful hits were enough: Invincibles, Hood. The truth is, there was thin deck armor
        So you need to shoot for sure
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 13 January 2014 19: 19
          0
          Exactly, it was in those years to get into the ship in general, which in 97% of cases was not observed.
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 13 January 2014 23: 21
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            Exactly, it’s in those years to get into the ship

            However, ours received 100-50 hits. Perhaps the distance was small. And maybe someone trained well. In the Yellow Sea, this was not
        2. Jin
          Jin 13 January 2014 22: 00
          +1
          Quote: Pilat2009
          reading shitty fuses (or shitty stuffing)


          Plus unconditional, for mastering the topic! "If" our squadron had shells of "Japanese quality" (Tsushima), "Mikasa", as such, would not remain at all))) Let's just say: Destroying it from the first 2, 3 dozen shots, the rest of the shells, those who got into it and did not explode, would go to his "colleagues in the squadron", which would not at all contribute to the combat effectiveness of the Japanese squadron ...
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 14 January 2014 12: 20
            0
            Quote: Jin
            Destroying him from the first 2, 3 dozen shots

            These 40 hits were accumulated during the whole battle, nevertheless, the whole crowd shot at him, at least the first three ships
        3. Jin
          Jin 13 January 2014 22: 29
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          Penetration of armor does not mean an explosion of ammunition.


          Theoretically, no) Again, it depends on the type of ammunition ... Okay, let's write it off at the beginning of the 20th century, to "not the adaptability of the ancient Japs" ... But !!! In practice, it blew up, injured and drowned !!!

          Quote: Pilat2009
          If Mikasa got a hundred armor-piercing, he would go to feed the fish


          Above the waterline, not a fact ... why?

          Quote: Pilat2009
          , Hood.


          Come on, colleague, no kookies! HUD ???
          And what got into it ??? ALREADY NOT Is it 380 mm from the Bismarck? In "HUD" -To? Do not confuse anything?

          Let the gauges give meaning, size does matter ...
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 13 January 2014 22: 57
            +3
            Quote: Jin
            Do not confuse anything? Let the gauges give meaning, size does matter ...

            Dear JIN! The 4th salvo of the Bismarck went where it was needed: (1/1 000 000) in the joint of the Huda's armor plates, which covered not much - not a little cellar with art ammunition. Well, let's face it: it's God's providence - to please! So "Come on, colleague, no quirks!"
            1. Jin
              Jin 14 January 2014 00: 34
              0
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              into the joint of the Huda armor plates, which covered not much - not a little, a cellar with art ammunition.


              Colleague, glad to know you, does you credit, but I'm not talking about that a bit! I mean those "calibers" that covered the "Mikasa" and about the 15-inch that flew into the "Hood". "Quirks" I mean these ... there is a difference, you must agree! You are talking about 1-2 successful hits and give an example ... in my opinion, not entirely successful, hence my comment.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 13 January 2014 23: 14
            0
            Quote: Jin
            Above the waterline, not a fact ... why?

            Explosions of the cellars, don’t they hit the towers. Ignition of gunpowder. There seems to have fallen on Fuji but it didn’t burst. Fuji was only booked in the middle and the armor was guarded. The same was true for armored cruisers. There’s generally thin armor. Each one is like in every Jutland and they would have a hard time
            Again, remember Lion-breaking tower, fire
            Quote: Jin
            Is it not 380 mm from the "Bismarck" well? In "HUD" -To?

            A colleague, I know that I flew to Hood. It was about accuracy. Whoever shoots faster and gets hit has the advantage. The same Goeben was covered with the first salvo. But the same Bismarck got to the control center and was blown away
            1. Jin
              Jin 14 January 2014 00: 45
              0
              Quote: Pilat2009
              Explosions of cellars, not? Hit in the tower. Ignition of gunpowder.


              Colleague, I just mean that it is not breakdowns (holes-holes) that lead to "life-incompatible" damage, but explosions! DETONATION. I am writing about this. The Yap shells stuffed with Shimoza tore apart our squadron, and ours, with all their inherent courage and self-sacrifice, made holes in the Yap ships, causing minimal damage. This is the essence of my comments ... Without ammunition detonation, above the waterline, "technological holes" can be made a lot, without critical damage, however ... In any case, before being towed to the port, but not before sinking.
      3. Igor80
        Igor80 13 January 2014 17: 35
        0
        Absolutely true!
      4. mark1
        mark1 13 January 2014 19: 15
        +1
        Quote: Jin
        But the "fatal", for the Russian squadron, was not armor, but just a shell!

        The "fatal" for the Russian squadron was weak tactical training of personnel, and above all of the highest command. If we had all the battleships "Mikasami" Rozhdestvensky would have drowned them all the same. And the armor on the NK is needed. even if not a citadel defense, but at least a local one.
        1. Jin
          Jin 13 January 2014 22: 07
          +1
          Quote: mark1

          The "fatal" for the Russian squadron was the weak tactical training of personnel, and above all of the highest command


          And this too, my colleague completely agrees with you ... many factors led to the Tsushima tragedy, you + And, moreover, the lack of preparation: On the admiral’s side, tactical, among gunners (this played a significant role), practical .. .
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 13 January 2014 23: 28
          +3
          Quote: mark1
          Christmas would have drowned them anyway.

          Colleague, you would be in the place of CHRISTMAS, but send across the floor of the globe. That’s already achieved a feat. Another thing with which came
          1. mark1
            mark1 15 January 2014 20: 45
            +1
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Colleague, you would be in the place of CHRISTMAS, but send across the floor of the globe. That’s already achieved a feat. Another thing with which came

            Colleague, if you send me, the result would probably be the same (although there are developments in hindsight (100 year old)). But I’m not an admiral! No one forcibly drove him on this campaign, he agreed after other candidates refused, an adventurous calculation worked out - hanging out as long as possible in the sea-okane, and there you look in St. Petersburg they will change their minds and call them back (or the war will end). An indirect confirmation of this is the almost complete absence of combat training during the campaign (it’s necessary for half a year of the campaign not to learn how to shoot and maneuver properly!) And the absence of any plan to break through to Vladivostok. And this is the best student of Makarov!
            The reference to the fact that he was going to die heroically is also not viable - he would like to die, he would die without problems, but he killed others and surrendered himself.
  7. Hort
    Hort 13 January 2014 12: 26
    +4
    The Exocet is a small rocket with a relatively small warhead. But if a "Mosquito" or "Granite" flies into the cruiser, somehow there is a doubt that the armor will help him
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 36
      0
      Quote: hort
      But if a "Mosquito" or "Granite" flies into the cruiser, somehow there is a doubt that the armor will help him

      Exoset installed on hundreds of warships, have aircraft options and modifications for launching from the shore

      How many ships are equipped with Mosquito and Granit? How much is such a rocket and a control system issuing? What is the chance to meet "Granite" in the event of a war with Libya or Iraq?

      superheavy "Granite" has remained a fantasy. Unlike Exocet and Harpoon, who sank a dozen ships

      SS Atlantic Conveyor hit by two Exosets
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 13 January 2014 19: 23
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        . Unlike Exoset ...

        You do not need to broadcast your omniscience from Olympus. Human memory, for your information, is not short.
        The boom of these anti-ship missiles began AFTER, and not BEFORE the drowning of the air defense destroyer (!) EKV Sheffield.
        Analysts of all ranks in the loss of the English ships in the Falklands were unanimous.
        From Wicked Wicked
        The development of a French medium-range anti-ship missile was launched in 1967 by Nord Aviation. The immediate occasion was the successful demonstration of the capabilities of anti-ship weapons - the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by the Soviet P-15 Termite missiles by the Egyptians

        hi
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 31
          0
          Quote: Cynic
          Analysts of all ranks in the loss of the English ships in the Falklands were unanimous.

          You invented it yourself.

          The sailors in most cases acted brilliantly - but on Her Majesty’s ships there were NO modern air defense systems (SiDart was available on only seven ships, a batch SiWulf - on two, no one had Phalanxes). Technology failed the British
          Quote: Cynic
          From Wicked Wicked

          Wikipedia knows more than you
          Quote: Cynic
          The development of a French medium-range anti-ship missile was launched in 1967 by Nord Aviation. The immediate occasion was the successful demonstration of the capabilities of anti-ship weapons - the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by the Soviet P-15 Termite missiles by the Egyptians

          And what do you want to prove this?
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 13 January 2014 20: 37
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You invented it yourself.

            You flatter me shamelessly.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The sailors in most cases acted brilliantly - but on Her Majesty’s ships there were NO modern air defense systems (SiDart was available on only seven ships, a batch SiWulf - on two, no one had Phalanxes).

            Recently comparatively said here
            The Falkled War was indeed a hell of a mess. An explosive mixture of errors, cowardice, negligence, original solutions and unsatisfactory characteristics of military equipment.

            And specifically about the drowned man
            . On a fateful morning, while in the war zone, the Sheffield commander ordered that all the radars and electronic devices of the ship be turned off so as not to interfere with his conversations via the Skynet satellite communications channel.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            SiDart was available on only seven ships

            Like at Sheffield?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Wikipedia knows more than you

            Never claimed the laurels of Wasserman.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And what do you want to prove this?

            Do not prove, dear SWEET_SIXTEEN , not prove, but say!
            wink
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 13 January 2014 20: 50
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              The Falkled War was indeed a hell of a mess. An explosive mixture of errors, cowardice, negligence, original solutions and unsatisfactory characteristics of military equipment.

              You read the first sentence of this article - and everything will become clear

              The British acted coolly - 12000 km from their native shores, on fragile frigates without air defense and modern weapons. Inodl was stupid, mistaken - as in any war. But in general - their brilliant training allowed them to win
              Quote: Cynic
              And specifically about the drowned man

              The sinking of Sheffield is a funny accident. The Plymouth, which was walking alongside, maneuvered well, turned aft, released dipoles - and avoided encountering missiles. Despite the fact that it was an old tub from the 1950s

              The problem is that 30 ships received gifts from the sky on Sheffield’s Korom - a third of the squadron was bombed
              Quote: Cynic
              Like at Sheffield?

              SAM Sidard - 5 destroyers of the "Sheffield" type, Bristol and the aircraft carrier Invincible (the latter did not enter the DB zone, kept at a distance, northeast of the islands)
              Quote: Cynic
              Never claimed the laurels of Wasserman.

              Then from here such contempt for the respected Vicki. No doubt, she is sometimes mistaken - but it allows you to form a first impression of a thing
              Quote: Cynic
              Do not prove, dear SWEET_SIXTEEN, do not prove, but say!

              И что же?
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 13 January 2014 21: 43
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The British acted cool - 12000 km from their native shores

                Your vision. Somehow I see it differently. Maybe TASS comments of those years are to blame? A contemporary of those events after all.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Then from here such contempt for the respected Vicki.

                Mmmm, it was said _
                Quote: Cynic
                From Wicked Wicked

                Where is contempt here? Sympathy rather to Wikipedia, which only once and as soon as not quoted.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                И что же?

                What did you want to say _
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                How many ships are equipped with Mosquito and ... Unlike Exoset and ...

                BUT ?
                By the way, it seems that the first British bought Exocet from the French.
                Could it be better to win the battle with the old samurai method - simply without joining it?
                yes
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 13 January 2014 21: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Cynic
                  Your vision. I somehow see it differently

                  The drowning of General Belgrano submarine HMS Conqueror



                  Airfield Harrier FOB. It was built for Nölle in the bay of San Carlos, under enemy fire.



                  The Falkland War knows many amazing episodes. Argentinean pilots acted no less abruptly - in contrast to Argentinean Navy sailors, who showed themselves to be complete ignoramuses and cowards (although there were exceptions)
                  Quote: Cynic
                  What did you want to say _
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  How many ships are equipped with Mosquito and ... Unlike Exoset and ...

                  Small-sized anti-ship missiles - Harpoon, Exocet and their Chinese counterparts - were widely used in practice in local wars. Compact size, many carriers, low cost - unlike Soviet monsters designed for the Third World War.

                  Mosquito and granite exported? At least once used in combat?
                  Quote: Cynic
                  in a word, it seems the first British bought Exocet from the French

                  yes
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic 13 January 2014 22: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The drowning of General Belgrano submarine HMS Conqueror

                    No documentary evidence. Who knows what he will say!
                    After all, the ship’s logbook is lost ?!
                    In general _ A true gentleman is the master of his word. He gave the word! I took the word back!
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Mosquito and granite exported?

                    Well no .
                    Onyx Yachts sold.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    At least once used in combat?

                    Mosquitoes stopudovo, but Granites ...
                    Thinking out loud _ In the USSR, RCC for the poor did not produce.
                    wink
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 22: 48
                      0
                      Quote: Cynic
                      No documentary evidence

                      Do you doubt the sinking of Belgrano ?? belay
                      Quote: Cynic
                      Onyx Yachts sold.

                      Brahmos. He has the same flaws as the Soviet anti-ship missiles. Too huge and heavy
                      Quote: Cynic
                      Mosquitoes stopudovo

                      When?
                      1. Cynic
                        Cynic 14 January 2014 17: 40
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Do you doubt the sinking of Belgrano?

                        Well, if the British Foreign Ministry doubts that it would be sunk by the EKB ship (it was outside the two-hundred-mile combat zone), can I doubt it?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        When?

                        You want to say that none of the buyers and owners have ever used sufficiently universal anti-ship missiles?
                        In general, a lot of people talked about the Falklands, for me the words were Mitterrand
                        Thatcher, what an impossible woman! ", - Mitterrand shared with Magoudi in his hearts." She has four nuclear submarines in the South Atlantic and she threatens to use nuclear weapons against Argentina if I do not disclose to her the secret codes that can make the missiles that we sold Argentines, deaf and blind, "- the author of the book quotes the words of the president. The situation was aggravated by the fact that missiles at" Sheffield "were fired from an aircraft also supplied from France." She is furious. She blames me personally for this new Trafalgar ... I was forced to surrender. She received the codes, "- admitted Mitterrand." No one can resist the insular syndrome of an unrestrained Englishwoman, "the president justified. He was convinced that if he had not revealed the missile codes, the" iron lady "would have ordered the bombing, writes Magoudi.

                        hi
      2. Hort
        Hort 14 January 2014 07: 42
        0
        Are you saying that our ships are NOT equipped with mosquitoes and granites (or similar missiles of other "brands")?
        Yes, and such a rocket is in every way cheaper than a ship.
        in addition, we have coastal artillery, which includes launchers with anti-ship missiles.
        And where does Libya and Iraq? We are not going to fight with them, it’s kind of like
  8. Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 13 January 2014 12: 33
    +4
    The author is not the first to talk about the beauty of armor on ships. Just how he intends to book them. Completely the entire freeboard or "American style", only vital parts? Do you need vertical booking, or does the author still want a horizontal booking? How thick? Five, six, seven inches? This is all irony :) Now to the point. In my opinion, electronics with their mass did not eat up the displacement reserve for the armor. This made the additional volumes necessary for its placement. Suffice it to compare the original silhouette of the Sevastopol or Imperial Maria and the silhouette of a modern destroyer or cruiser. By the way, the evolution of superstructures on the "October Revolution" or "Marat" (such as "Sevastopol") is also indicative. Should I book them too? And then I recall the plot describing the battle in the Pacific Ocean during the Second World War, when an American destroyer, accidentally finding herself near a Japanese cruiser during a battle, practically deprived the latter of its combat capability by firing at the superstructure from the MZA. Further, the author gives an example of Tsushima, but somehow modestly keeps silent about what type of shells the Japanese fleet fired at 2, 3 TO squadrons. According to the logic of the article, these shells should be armor-piercing, but in fact - high-explosive. Then the author cites as evidence of the usefulness of the armor, the fact that it was not removed when the Americans modernized the battleships. However, if they even wanted to, then how to dismantle the INNER armor belt, which, among other things, is structurally included in ensuring the longitudinal strength of the ship? And the opus about "an aerial bomb flying from a high altitude slightly slower compared to a subsonic anti-ship missile system" has no comment at all. Along the way, by the way, I remember the Tollboys with which the British sank the Tirpitz, which was quite well booked by the way.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 38
      0
      Along the way, by the way, I remember the Tollboys, with which the British sank the Tirpitz, which was quite well booked by the way.

      "Tollboy" as an argument is strong))))
      5 tons - WHO of modern aircraft will be able to raise such a b / p?


      Quote: Nick_1972
      Do you need a vertical reservation, or does the author still want a horizontal one? What thickness?

      Required. 50 ... 100 mm

      Harpoon's attack algorithm provides for a "slide" and a blow to the deck
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 January 2014 21: 37
      0
      A tallboy, by the way, is a supersonic bomb. A fairly streamlined body near the ground can be very decently dispersed, a person without a parachute falls at a speed of 50-60 m / s.
  9. SIT
    SIT 13 January 2014 13: 24
    +2
    What will prevent the cumulative warhead from being installed on anti-ship missiles? Grenade from RPG 7 80s of the last century (called cool - Summary))) flashes 650mm of armor + dynamic protection. So any US battleship, in principle, can now be perforated from a kayak. If you make warheads of such a caliber as RCC, then the cumulative stream will burn everything in its path from side to side. If any of the ammunition of the ship’s armament appears on its way, then what remains after the explosion can only be turned into scrap metal.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 44
      +2
      Quote: SIT
      What would prevent the cumulative warhead from being installed on anti-ship missiles? ... if you make warheads of the same caliber as anti-ship missiles

      A hole with a diameter of 10 cm wakes up

      The ship, unlike the tank, does not immediately have fuel, ammunition, etc. right behind the armor. dangerous things
      1. SIT
        SIT 13 January 2014 15: 23
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        A hole with a diameter of 10 cm wakes up


        Behind this hole, immediately in the reserved space there will be a not weak ignition center. But at what depth does the cumulative stream of ammunition of this caliber go inside the ship? There are no armored plates, but ordinary bulkheads and plastic. If the central post is reached, then there will be no living people or computers. When such a jet enters the engine room and, accordingly, the destruction of boilers or turbines, in the best case, the nostril is towed to the dock, and most likely again to scrap.
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 January 2014 15: 32
          +1
          Quote: SIT
          Behind this hole there will immediately be a non-weak source of ignition

          What will burn there?

          Quote: SIT
          But at what depth does the cumulative stream of ammunition of this caliber go inside the ship? There are no armored plates

          Before the first bulkhead, and look at the protection of the tanks, thin sheets are used there, the main layer of air, and if the tank has tens of centimeters there, then there will be 2 meters.

          At the same time, you don’t accidentally have a section of a cumulatively high explosive warhead missile? I’m pretty sure that all the difference from the usual high explosive high-explosive cavity is a cumulative wide-focus depression without facing.
          1. SIT
            SIT 13 January 2014 16: 54
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Before the first bulkhead, and look at the protection of the tanks, thin sheets are used there, the main layer of air, and if the tank has tens of centimeters, then there will be 2 meters. Do you have an accidentally cumulative high-explosive warhead missile? I am almost sure that everything Unlike conventional high-explosive, this is a cumulative wide-focus depression without facing.


            I do not have RCC drawings with a cumulative warhead, no, I was not, I was not, I did not participate, I was not involved laughing But in time immemorial, the TM 83 device passed. So after blasting this ammunition, the cumulative impact core burns through an 50mm hole in 80mm armor at a distance of up to 100m. Enough air gap of 50m? And why burn on the ship there is always. The worst thing in the sea is a fire.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 January 2014 17: 06
              +1
              Quote: SIT
              I do not have RCC drawings with a cumulative warhead, no, I was not, I was not, I did not participate, I was not involved

              Sorry
              Quote: SIT
              So after blasting this ammunition, the cumulative impact core at a distance of up to 50m burns an 80mm hole in 100mm armor.

              The cumulative core does not burn anything, but acts due to kinetic energy.
              And it is very doubtful that at a distance of 50 meters, most likely 10-15. It's like F1 at 200 m
              Quote: SIT
              Enough air gap of 50m?
              Great one.

              Quote: SIT
              ? And why burn on the ship there is always. The worst thing in the sea is a fire.

              But not in the first compartment for armor.
              1. alex86
                alex86 13 January 2014 21: 21
                +4
                Excuse me if I'm talking about physics again: TM-83 (as well as, possibly, cumulative warheads of anti-ship missiles) has a range of up to 50 m (according to performance characteristics), armor penetration of 100 mm and a hole diameter of 80 mm, but it operates on the principle of a "shock core" (this is the "pest" of the cumulative ammunition, which you, of course, know). But FOR the first obstacle, on which the warhead worked, will not be any 50 m, of course - the "pest" will work out the first obstacle and will lose a significant part of its energy. And then - a tandem is needed with a dubious, in my opinion, result - the ship is not a tank, a hole even in 80 mm is not fatal for sure.
                "... That's the kind of person I am ..."
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 13 January 2014 18: 10
      +1
      Quote: SIT
      So any US battleship, in principle, can now be perforated from a kayak.
      "I-I, das ist fantastish!", Right, a desperate guy on a water scooter with an RPG-7, and, a fox to all battleships ... This is not a tank for you, which, however, is also not so easy to burn. For clarity, the booking scheme of the Italian battleship (clickable). It must be said that in addition to passive protection on the battleships there was also a crew whose tasks included the fight for survivability in various versions, from fighting fires and pumping out water, sealing holes, to repairing components and mechanisms.
  10. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 13 January 2014 13: 25
    +3
    Armor ships need. But, of course, not the usual solid, metal, as on the ships of the Second World War, but modern: combined, honeycomb construction as light as possible. Such armored modules, by the way, were developed at the end of the USSR and passed successful tests, but with the collapse of the Union all these works were abandoned.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 13 January 2014 23: 50
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Armor ships need.

      You can say this: "With armor is better than without armor" - additional protection after all
      Quote: altman
      but will disable the radar antennas

      And he won’t get them out? And then the ship can and will be blind, but the crew will not suffer and you can shed it under your own power. In general, colleagues, it’s better to improve air defense and go in a group
  11. altman
    altman 13 January 2014 13: 25
    +1
    The opinion of a layman .. An explosion on an armored deck will not cause damage to the survivability of the ship. but it will disable the radar antennas, which will make the ship deaf and blind .. Well, what's the point of keeping the ship afloat?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 14: 47
      0
      Quote: altman
      Well, what's the point of staying afloat?

      The ship returned to the base for repair, no casualties among the crew
      1. altman
        altman 13 January 2014 15: 19
        +1
        he went down for a long enough time .. I don’t think that modern war will last for months
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 13 January 2014 15: 45
          +1
          Quote: altman
          he was out of order for a sufficiently long period

          And without armor, it generally burned out and sank. dragging a bunch of people to the bottom
          Quote: altman
          I don’t think modern war will last for months

          Modern warfare is a local mess of Hussein (al-Qaeda, Hamas) vs the US Navy

          Even if Exocet (the Chinese Yinji RCC / suicide boat) breaks into the ship, the armor minimizes damage and eliminates the death of a large number of people

          Undermining the USS Cole (DDG-67) in the port of Aden. Yemen, October 12 2000 g. On board the terrorist boat there was an IED with the capacity of 200 ... 300 kg of TNT. An external explosion of a primitive WU a couple of meters from the side of the destroyer is the result: a hole with a width of 9 meters, flooding of the engine room lb, a propeller shaft bent, the ship was pierced diagonally almost through - Cole lost power and power, 17 died, 39 sailors were injured.
          A boat costing $ 300 completely disabled an Aegis destroyer worth $ 1 500 000 000

          Any WWII cruiser - the same Australia mentioned in the article - would only look in surprise at the torn armored plate and continue on its way.
          1. altman
            altman 13 January 2014 18: 06
            0
            the conversation seems to be about armoring decks, not sideboards ... it’s clear that an armored ship will not notice a missile or an explosion like in Yemen .. I want to say that an explosion on the deck will also bring considerable damage to a modern ship, even if it is armored
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 13 January 2014 18: 32
              0
              Quote: altman
              I want to say that the explosion on the deck will also bring considerable damage to the modern ship, even if it is armored


              Quote: Kars
              In your opinion, is it worse than drowning in the sea with most of the crew?
              1. altman
                altman 13 January 2014 18: 35
                +1
                no .. but booking a ship leads to a rise in the cost of the ship and not the fact that greatly increases its combat effectiveness, or rather the ability to perform combat missions after hitting a single missile!
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 03
                  0
                  Quote: altman
                  but booking a ship makes the ship more expensive

                  Until 1945, everyone wore armor - despite primitive machining technologies and low productivity
                  Quote: altman
                  and not the fact that greatly enhances its combat effectiveness

                  Just the same fact
                  Quote: altman
                  the ability to perform combat missions after hitting one single rocket!

                  Do you really think Exocet's only hit on the cruiser Baltimore could have prevented him from working the coastline with his 8 'guns?

                  1. altman
                    altman 13 January 2014 19: 15
                    0
                    What does the processing have to do with it .. I mean the price of the reservation itself ..
                    Of course, the hit of Exocet will not prevent him from firing with his eight-inch, but .. falling of the same missile onto the deck of the English destroyer type45, even if it is armored, will incapacitate him for a very long time
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 18
                      +1
                      Quote: altman
                      What does the processing have to do with it .. I mean the price of the reservation itself ..

                      And the situation when the $ 300 boat completely disables the ship for 1,5 billion - doesn’t it bother you at all?)))
                      Quote: altman
                      but .. falling of the same rocket onto the deck of an English destroyer such as 45, even if it is armored, will incapacitate it for a very long

                      If you book a Briton - it will not be Type45
                      It will be cr. Baltimore, where instead of eight inches - UVP and radars
                      1. altman
                        altman 13 January 2014 19: 22
                        0
                        But the failure of the radar antennas will lead to the fact that this Baltimore will not be able to perform tasks!
                      2. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 37
                        0
                        Quote: altman
                        But the failure of the radar antennas will lead to the fact that this Baltimore will not be able to perform tasks!

                        In a local war with Iraq, he will shoot his ammunition and go for repairs. The main task is completed, there are no losses among the l / s.

                        You can start Tomahawks without a radar. As well as firing GK on targets beyond the horizon (fire adjustment - UAVs / ground teams of spotters)
                2. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 13 January 2014 19: 22
                  0
                  "Exocet's only hit"

                  why not four? is he 4 times bigger than Sheffield? well, or Granite’s only hit then

                  it depends on where they hit - Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were blinded after one 8 "round. 127mm shell deprived the battleship Colorado of air defense. Any small NSSM will explode more powerful - and no Baltimore or Zamwalt will hit the target for 150 km. And then what will be happy about these billions turned into trash, but did not drown?
                  1. altman
                    altman 13 January 2014 19: 25
                    0
                    aha .. that they returned to the base .. and got up for repair for six months
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 49
                      0
                      Quote: altman
                      aha .. that they returned to the base .. and got up for repair for six months

                      Or sank off the coast of Iran, along with half the crew

                      I cannot guarantee eternal life
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 13 January 2014 19: 31
                    +3
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Rpitz and Scharnhorst were blinded after one 8 "round. 127mm round deprived the battleship of Colorado air defense. Any small NSSM will explode more powerful - and no Baltimore and

                    as you can see, the matter translates into probability and loss of combat effectiveness - unlike GUARANTEED drowning. Or repair in half the cost of the ship. Which without armor are billions.
                  3. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    it depends on where it goes - Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were blinded after one 8 "round. 127mm shell deprived the battleship of the Colorado air defense

                    In modern conditions, this is not dangerous - the ship will shoot the ammunition and go for repair
                    and then what will he rejoice? to the fact that these billions turned into rubbish, but didn’t drown?

                    mission accomplished
                    damage is minimal
                    no casualties among personnel
                    1. altman
                      altman 13 January 2014 19: 50
                      0
                      then it all comes down to one thing - who first opens fire ..
                    2. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 20: 00
                      0
                      Quote: altman
                      then it all comes down to one thing - who first opens fire ..

                      Why do you think so?
                    3. altman
                      altman 13 January 2014 20: 09
                      0
                      When two ships meet .. one of which has an armored deck, and the other is not there who has more chances? The first one to open fire. Isn't it? A missile from a simple ship falls into an armored one and incapacitates radars, fire control systems, and various antennas. Who has won? The armored remained alive, but is unlikely to fulfill its mission. The return option .. The armored hit a rocket in a simple ship .. Not the armored one is likely to die and will not complete the task. So who wins? The first to open fire
                    4. Kars
                      Kars 13 January 2014 20: 14
                      +2
                      Quote: altman
                      The first to open fire

                      And you think unarmored for some reason should shoot first?
                      Quote: altman
                      A missile from a simple ship falls into an armored one and incapacitates radars, fire control systems, and various antennas.

                      And why did you get the idea that it hits? Maybe the first missiles will beat off the means of active protection and jamming? And why do you think that the rocket will get there and that will disable ALL radars (there is more than one radar on a large ship).
                      but the missile that hit the unarmored ship, EVEN SHARD ROCKET brought down by air defense systems will almost certainly put him out of action, cause great damage to the crew, and even drown.
                    5. altman
                      altman 13 January 2014 20: 21
                      0
                      Well, this is demagoguery .. whether it falls or not .. the abstract version .. it’s possible to finish up with what we’ll do with super-battleships and they’ll only have a ram in service, if only the speed is fast so that any ship can catch up ..
                    6. Kars
                      Kars 13 January 2014 20: 39
                      +3
                      Quote: altman
                      Well, this is demagoguery ..

                      It’s demagogy to talk about the price of reservations when units are already billions and a couple of hundred millions of weathers will not create the weather. Instead, they will increase survival and combat stability. And this is not done only because the US does not see its rivals, and no one will challenge the US Navy for economic reasons .Since the US ALREADY HAS 10 Aircraft carriers.
                      And the fact that the armor is useful is obvious.
                3. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 13 January 2014 20: 25
                  0
                  Quote: altman
                  The first to open fire

                  In a purely dueling situation, 1 on 1 - they simultaneously cover each other. The consequences are obvious - an armored ship will go for repair, an unarmored ship will sink with its crew

                  Earth curvature and detection range are the same for everyone. Differences in the operation of the BIOS - it does not matter anymore. The flight time is a few minutes - everyone will have time to shoot.

                  But a classic naval battle in modern conditions is impossible - much more interesting and realistic is the operation "fleet against coast". And that's where the capabilities of armored ships are realized in full force.
                4. altman
                  altman 13 January 2014 20: 28
                  0
                  The operation of the fleet against the coast will be influenced by many other factors besides the reservation .. availability of aviation, submarines ... even just coastal anti-ship systems ... so ... the question is ambiguous
                5. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 13 January 2014 20: 36
                  0
                  Quote: altman
                  .so..the question is ambiguous

                  What is its ambiguity?

                  In modern local wars, a lot of ships suffered from various force majeure (they missed or could not bring down a rocket, a boat with suicide bombers (Cole), a case with mortar shelling of ships in the Jordanian port). Each time armor would be very helpful
                6. altman
                  altman 13 January 2014 20: 39
                  0
                  It’s a pity that there wasn’t ... a question ... what are the guys from the States .. or our GMH doing? In vain do they eat their bread? Book all ships !!! I should tell them !! And then it will not reach them after all !!
                7. Kars
                  Kars 13 January 2014 20: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: altman
                  It’s a pity that there wasn’t ... a question ... what are the guys from the States .. or our GMH doing?

                  US guys still celebrate victory in the Cold War
                  Quote: altman
                  And then it will not reach them after all !!

                  It’s long since they reached it. There’s only no enemy and there are already ready ships. So there is no incentive to rebuild. And this even despite the fact that the Ticonderoga’s hulls just crack))
  12. tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 January 2014 20: 02
    +1
    how is this done? eight-inch shell bach! - And Bismarck will never hit the target again ... Another Bach! - Scharnhorst was left without radar ... And Zamvolt will get a rocket, shake off, hit all BenLadans for 150km and go to be repaired?
  13. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 13 January 2014 20: 26
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    how is this done? eight-inch shell bach! - And Bismarck will never hit the target again ... Another Bach! - Scharnhorst was left without radar ...

    launch Tomahawks and shoot a cannon at 45 km - no radar is required for this
  14. Hort
    Hort 14 January 2014 07: 58
    +1
    here is how? And will the observer point from the mast (do not forget about the curvature of the Earth)?
  15. tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 January 2014 08: 59
    0
    yeah, no hardware is needed at all. and the captain will always have a compass and an astrolabe smile . Well, the rocket will only destroy the radar, the rest will not touch
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 13 January 2014 13: 39
    0
    The Russian Federation has 5 cruisers, 2 of them (Aurora and Mikhail Kutuzov) are armored, that is, 40% of cruisers correspond to the author’s concept. After the entry into service and the beginning of the use of Lazarev, Ustinov and Nakhimov, 100% of cruisers may be armored.
    A surface ship is generally outdated, only multichannel vehicles can operate normally, the role of the main armor of which is played by the engine group of reactors, but here sociology comes first (as the Philadelphia experiment showed, crew members who are in the past do not always aspire back) and the field power is unprofitable for the chimeric type protection of ships - they don’t want to go back and they can catch Gorbachev in childhood. Therefore, one must be kinder, build a society of truth and justice, then the protection of the ships will withstand any blow or part with it.
    1. mark1
      mark1 13 January 2014 23: 04
      +1
      Happy New Year, dear! Take care of yourself, do not abuse alcohol, go to work tomorrow!
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 13 January 2014 15: 02
    0
    So, 300 m / s and 165 kg give us energy 7 425 000 kgm. Which is almost half the size of an 152-mm projectile. Do not break. So there will be an EXPLOSION ON THE ARMOR

    The author forgot to compare the mechanical strength of a shell and a rocket. When you hit the armor of warhead missiles guaranteed to collapse and with a high probability of explosion will not happen. In Sheffield, by the way, the warhead did not explode - either of those. defect, or the fuse collapsed upon meeting with the skin.
    And nobody will give it. Such surface ships, so that 13 thousand tons of displacement, except for aircraft carriers and various landing options, have not been built for a long time

    But what about Zamvolt - three super-destroyers, full in / and 14,5 thousand tons. Stealth, peripheral ARMORED UVP, FEP, automation, large-caliber artillery, super-radar with AFAR ... The price including R&D reaches $ 7 billion.
    And they are building!


    1st photo in the article - "Australia" after the kamikaze attack

    HMAS Australia after THREE rams of kamikaze (5,6 and 9 on January 1945) + bombing in the area of ​​the waterline (8 on January). Despite SUCH damage, the old, weakly armored cruiser reached Australia, underwent emergency repairs and went under its own power through half the world to the UK!
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 January 2014 15: 18
    +3
    Interesting article. It is not clear why it was not printed here before.

    Nuclear weapons undoubtedly accelerated the departure of armor from the scene. But RCC can also be involved in this. Apart from light western subsonic missiles, there were also Soviet subsonic devices weighing from 1,5 to 5 tons. Together with Chinese copies, they were in service with dozens of countries. The very first samples of the 50s pierced through light cruisers, the TKR stronghold Stalingrad was full of holes. We ourselves still use Termite, 5 ton Malachite on boats in the last war, bullet. And even now, heavy subsonic is still being developed (China, Iran, our two-ton subsonic Club) - in short, if you want to break through the cruiser, there is a rocket. I'm not talking about supersonic sound (at least 7 countries already have such missiles)

    Then a rocket is not the only way to destroy a cruiser or a battleship - a mine, a torpedo, an air bomb (how many battleships they pierced through). But how many battleship do you need to go blind and be a torpedo or an air bomb to be finished? Scharnhorst with 16-inch armor was enough for an 8-inch shell. At Bismarck, the same shell disabled the artillery control. Battleship Colorado received one 5-inch shell and was left without air defense. It is foolish to assume that some Harpoon, Otomat, a dozen Kharmov or RBS will do less trouble than a projectile with 3-10 kg of explosives
    And in the presence of a huge amount of equipment, antennas on board a modern ship ...- you can’t reserve your eyes in short.
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 January 2014 15: 21
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      air bomb (how many battleships they pierced through).

      Well, at least they didn’t burn like some from high explosive 250 and 500 pounds.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 13 January 2014 15: 51
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Well, at least they didn’t burn like some from high explosive 250 and 500 pounds.

        The destroyer (frigate?) Of Her Majesty "Coventry" is sinking

        the result of exposure to three 227-kg Mk.82 bombs of which one did not explode. The height of the bombing did not exceed a couple of hundred meters
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 13 January 2014 16: 24
          0
          during WWII this was enough for some cruisers
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 January 2014 16: 34
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            during WWII this was enough for some cruisers

            what if not a secret?
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 13 January 2014 16: 40
              +1
              Southampton or Chervona Ukraine for example
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 13 January 2014 17: 12
                0
                Chervona Ukraine - the worst of the cruisers who took part in WWII. old ship 1915 of the year, in / and 7000 tons, with very weak booking - 2 decks by 20 mm, consider that there was no horizontal reservation

                Southampton -
                Southampton, on the other hand, sustained 2 500-kg bomb hits: the first detonated in the wardroom and the second in the Officer's mess. Huge fires broke out and isolated some of the control for flooding the magazines, rendering the situation immediately critical.

                After 4 hours of fruitless efforts to bring the conflagration under control, Southampton was abandoned at 1900 hrs, the crew being rescued by Gloucester and Diamond. Subsequently, the wreck received a coup de grace from Orion


                2 500 kg bombs
                4 hours of struggle for survivability
                "blow of mercy" from Orion

                Despite the fact that Southampton was also not a reference - a victim of "Washington" restrictions with a 32 mm deck
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 13 January 2014 18: 04
                  0
                  this victim was two and a half times larger
                  and 32mm and Otomat with Harpoon will master
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 January 2014 18: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    and 32mm and Otomat with Harpoon will master

                    If you learn to dive under 90 degrees.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 18: 38
                      0
                      Harpoon knows how - I posted a scheme somewhere here

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      this victim was two and a half times larger

                      And the bombs are 2 times larger. With similar horizontal protection

                      Southampton is a victim of Washington restrictions. Designers had to INTENTIONALLY weaken the protection

                      Ukraine is the worst and weakest ship, which as of 1941, the cruiser was only nominally
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 13 January 2014 18: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Harpoon knows how - I posted a scheme somewhere here

                        there degrees 30-45
                      2. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 13 January 2014 19: 28
                        0
                        but how much? 3rd minute (ground target). will be more
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 January 2014 16: 12
      +1
      Well, they didn’t burn. just stood in the repair waiting for a larger bomb. and then exploded
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 January 2014 16: 15
        +1
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Well, they didn’t burn. just stood in the repair

        Do you think this is worse than drowning in the sea with most of the crew? The old American destroyers - the sacrificial lambs of the radar patrol survived after much more damage than some of their modern comrades.

        So far, the only major Falkland conflict is shouting directly about the need for reservations. See what would happen in a clash between the Japanese and the Chinese with their American-like Ajiso destroyers.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 13 January 2014 16: 34
          +1
          read to the end - "and then exploded." and there it was already talking about hundreds of corpses and tens of thousands of wasted metal
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 January 2014 16: 50
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            read to the end - "and then exploded"

            Then where did they explode? In the port? From 5 ton bombs as typical?
            Or the same red Ukraine (well, a very old ship, by the way almost 30 mm deck not armored) did not sink right away, but after a couple of days when the crew was already removed.
            On January 11, 1941, 12 German Ju-87R bombers flew out to attack south-east of Malta a detachment of British ships heading for Alexandria. Ju-87Rs, operating at the limit of their range, caught the British by surprise. Attacking from the direction of the sun, the pilots achieved three direct hits on the cruiser Southampton. Another 250-kg bomb hit the cruiser Gloucester, but having pierced five decks, it never exploded.

            The Southampton was so badly damaged that at 22.00 hours it was abandoned by the crew and flooded by three torpedoes fired from the Orion cruiser.


            By the way, what is better IMMEDIATELY or THEN?
            1. SIT
              SIT 13 January 2014 17: 17
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              By the way, what is better IMMEDIATELY or THEN?

              The Prince of Wales, with an armored belt up to 380 mm thick and deck armor up to 152 mm, went to the bottom an hour and a half after the start of the attack of Japanese bombers and torpedo bombers. The old Ripals, who had fought with the Kaiser fleet in World War I, received 1 mm armor and received the first bomb at 152h11m, and at 15h12m he was already going down to the bottom vertically with his nose up. At the bottom of the battleship a man and a half went with the admiral, and almost 30 people managed to remove the escort destroyers from the cruiser.
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 January 2014 17: 19
                +1
                Quote: SIT
                up to 380mm and deck armor

                From torpedoes. Bombs can be ignored.
                I do not say anything against the effectiveness of torpedoes.
                1. SIT
                  SIT 13 January 2014 17: 37
                  +2
                  Quote: Kars
                  I do not say anything against the effectiveness of torpedoes.

                  Well then, do not bother with the cumulative warhead missiles. Equip a subsonic missile with a torpedo flurry. In a kilometer from the target to dive and further the torpedo with a speed of 100m / sec solves the issue.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 13 January 2014 17: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: SIT
                    A kilometer from the target

                    the speed is too high - 300 m / s - it will collapse upon impact with water. Extinguish speed with parachutes - make rockets extremely vulnerable to air defense systems

                    torpedo mass Flurry is almost 3 tons, while it has a very modest warhead (210 kg is 1,5 times smaller than conventional torpedoes. And the range of only 7 km (according to other 13 data) is STRICTLY DIRECT (homing is impossible) .

                    As a result, your miracle rocket will have the same mass as the Buran rocket and space system and will be completely useless
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 13 January 2014 17: 43
                    +1
                    Quote: SIT
                    Well then, do not bother with a cumulative warhead missile

                    Say honestly - you personally should. Although, as a personal increase in the baggage of knowledge. To distinguish between the impact core and the cumulative stream.

                    Quote: SIT
                    Equip a subsonic missile with a torpedo Flurry

                    Well, missile torpedoes have been around for a long time. Without a Flurry of course. It’s almost impossible to do with it - it’s still an uncontrollable torpedo. Yes, and to extinguish speed just a kilometer from a ship that shoots out a Kashtan type air defense system is still a pleasure.
                    Quote: SIT
                    and then the torpedo solves the issue at a speed of 100m / s

                    It is necessary to develop anti-torpedo systems. It seems like there are already hitting ones.
                3. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 13 January 2014 18: 10
                  +1
                  you can count neither bombs nor anti-ship missiles or small Harmas that will turn the battleship into Vesuvius. Only then will it be necessary to consider larger torpedoes or bombs
              2. yehat
                yehat 14 January 2014 15: 33
                0
                This ship was a battle cruiser, where defense was heavily sacrificed to accommodate the main guns of the main caliber and speed.
                The British, even before their construction, admitted that they were protected much worse than Hood, which was enough to hit one 381mm shell from Bismarck. Prince of Wales is one of the English. officers generally called glass.
              3. yehat
                yehat 14 January 2014 15: 33
                0
                This ship was a battle cruiser, where defense was heavily sacrificed to accommodate the main guns of the main caliber and speed.
                The British, even before their construction, admitted that they were protected much worse than Hood, which was enough to hit one 381mm shell from Bismarck. Prince of Wales is one of the English. officers generally called glass.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. tlauicol
              tlauicol 13 January 2014 18: 07
              +1
              Marat, Arizona, Roma, Tirpicz waited for their THERE and exploded IMMEDIATELY - is that understandable? and it was worse nowhere
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 January 2014 18: 21
                +2
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Marat, Arizona, Roma, Tirpicz waited for their THERE and exploded IMMEDIATELY - is that understandable?

                Well, you're funny)))
                So is it better to immediately explode, or explode immediately afterwards?
                Marat - Dreadnought pre-revolutionary buildings.
                Arizona at the same time received a SPECIAL bomb from an armor-piercing shell, and Marat had to wait until special bombs were sent from Germany)))

                Roma - SPECIAL, armor-piercing, radio-controlled bombs. The construction of warheads of which was repeated by a granite rocket, and which is unattainable for lungs.
                Well, Tirpitz - 5 tons of brmbs, three years of hunting and 700 sorties.
                Quote: Tlauicol
                only later will you have to consider larger torpedoes or bombs

                Is it better to die sooner rather than later?
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 13 January 2014 19: 36
                  0
                  It’s ridiculous to rivet the battleships against which all kinds of fools will later build special bombs, or they will hang a special acceleration engine on old bombs or stupidly weld special wings for the plumage to the shell. And then they will laugh merrily. And if you mess around - they riddled with 5-8-inch shells of the superstructure and finished off with torpedoes. And laugh again
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 January 2014 20: 19
                    +3
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Funny riveting battleships

                    It’s ridiculous to use the fleet at all when there is a nuclear bomb or economic sanctions)))
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    special wings for plumage will be welded to the projectile and that’s it.

                    Yes, not everything, still need to fly over the ship,
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    And if you mess around, they will riddle with 5-8 inch shells of the superstructure and finish off with torpedoes

                    I see you return fire is not considered at all? Maybe while there will be riddles - 2 6 inch shells will drown the rosette)))

                    You will cease to be worried, or you will begin to carry frank nonsense, which is even uninteresting.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 14 January 2014 09: 20
                      0
                      How lucky .. Bismarck, not a single light cruiser has riddled - he received a small hotel and all his shells flew into milk. Scharnhorst screwed up about the same. Heavy German and Japanese cruisers lose to light and even (oh my God!) Destroyers! And the first to discover and fire them. (Haguro)
                      As for pre-revolutionary Arizona - and what, its armor has expired? Or have sailors for 20 years completely pierced the armored deck? The same old shell as the battleship itself plummeted it with plumage.
                      How aviation operates, attacking Kharmas, and then larger missiles and bombs have been disassembled here a hundred times. No armor will help here. Blind ship beaten as beaten by German / Japanese battleships
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 14 January 2014 11: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      How lucky .. Bismarck won not a single light cruiser

                      And so you still live in the past? Here you have rockets, and here you have 40 artillery guidance systems))) And not a single cruiser to Bismarck before Rodney and King George started shelling him. Sheffield would have approached one and would have settled)))
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      As for pre-revolutionary Arizona - and what, its armor has expired?
                      Expired))) booking concept.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Same old shell

                      But not a high explosive 500 Pound bomb
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      How aviation works, attacking Harmas, and then larger missiles and bombs here have already been dismantled a hundred times

                      )))) you see THEN, and not IMMEDIATELY after the first hit.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      No armor will help here.

                      And what will hinder?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • yehat
    yehat 14 January 2014 16: 02
    0
    you are not completely honest.
    German large ships had an extensive system of target designation and guidance. Even 2 accurate hits by any caliber could not cancel the control of fire. Only its effectiveness was reduced - the accuracy of the calculation of the introduction of corrections of volleys.
  • Uncle
    Uncle 13 January 2014 16: 21
    0
    I am interested in the Russian-Japanese war, I read "Tsushima" and "Port Arthur". I did not find a complete idea of ​​the reasons for the defeat of Russia. Guys, tell me a good book on this topic.
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 January 2014 16: 32
      +3
      Quote: Uncle
      I did not find a complete picture of the reasons for the defeat of Russia. Guys, tell me a good book on this topic.

      this is for you here --- http: //tsushima.su/


      I won’t advise a separate good book. The last thing I read was about the last Armadillo type Eagle .. Glory ..
      http://flibusta.net/b/346860/read

      very well gives an idea of ​​the battleships of the Russian Empire

      my personal opinion - the main reason for the defeat is the rotten autocratic regime. and all personnel decisions arising from it.
    2. moremansf
      moremansf 13 January 2014 16: 46
      +2
      The tragedy of Tsushima (Reckoning. The battle of Tsushima. The price of blood)
      picYear of release: 2008
      Author: Semenov V.I.
      Genre: Memoirs, Military History
      Publisher: Yauza, Eksmo
      Series: Unknown Wars of the 20th Century
      ISBN: 978-5-699-30238-3
      Format: FB2
      Quality: OCR without errors, RUS
      Количество страниц: 640
      Language: Russian
      Description: This book is written by a man of unique fate. Captain of the second rank Vladimir Semenov was the only officer of the Russian Imperial Fleet, who during the Russo-Japanese War had the opportunity to serve in the First and Second Pacific Squadrons and participate in both main naval battles - in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima. In the tragic Tsushima battle, being on the flagship of the Russian squadron, Semenov received five wounds and after returning from Japanese captivity he did not live long, but managed to supplement his diaries, which he kept during the fighting, and publish them with three books: “Reckoning,” “Fighting” under Tsushima "," The price of blood. " During the author’s lifetime, these books were translated into nine languages, they were quoted by the victor Tsushima himself - Admiral Togo. And at home, Semyonov’s memoirs caused a scandal - Vladimir Ivanovich was the first to dare to write that the battleship Petropavlovsk, on which Admiral Makarov was killed, was blown up not on a Japanese, but on a Russian mine, and contrary to public opinion, he highly appreciated the activities of Admiral Rozhdestvensky.
      After the early death of V.I. Semenov (he died at the age of 43 years), his books were undeservedly forgotten and are now known only to specialists. This is the first full edition of the trilogy in 100 years, returning to the domestic reader some of the best memoirs about the Russo-Japanese War.
      1. Jin
        Jin 13 January 2014 16: 54
        +1
        Quote: moremansf
        The tragedy of Tsushima (Reckoning. The battle of Tsushima. The price of blood)


        Truly, a colleague! There are still wonderful books by Novikov-Priboy, which very clearly and competently narrate about the entire campaign of the Russian squadron and about the battle itself. About moods, the quality of ammunition, drug training ... It was very informative and documented, I liked it, I learned a lot for myself and found out ... a small part was outlined in the post above.
    3. shurup
      shurup 13 January 2014 17: 50
      0
      Kostenko V.P. Report in the MTK about armadillos after Tsushima.
      "Military literature", memoirs.
    4. sergius60
      sergius60 13 January 2014 18: 54
      0
      I had to read "Secret reports of ship commanders", editions of MGSH 1907 (the font of course endured brains) with a secrecy period of 10 years. There were many who wanted to be interested in 1917 (!)? So, the report of the commander of "Oleg" Kaperang Dobrotvorsky has morally killed forever. 12.12.1904 5 (FIVE) Dutch submarines (ONE torpedo tube) were delivered to the port of Sasebo. A license was sold for RIF (type "Som"). Yes, Fulton donated it. To make everyone happy! CR "Oleg" found a floating torpedo, God knows how far from Japanese ships (then the torpedo range of 1 km is a puppy delight). The torpedo was thrown from the Aurora missile launcher by a wave, and at the Kamchatka missile launcher they saw a torpedo passing by (torpedoes were air at that time - they bubbled, God forbid!) But where else are TWO? The oddities of the deaths of "Borodino" and "Alexander 3" are still plaguing opponents!
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 14 January 2014 12: 12
        0
        Thanks to all who answered.
    5. yehat
      yehat 14 January 2014 16: 06
      0
      the main problem is that the Russian linear fleet was faced with the revolutionary tactics of maintaining an art duel at maximum distance. If the battle went according to the usual tactics to which everything was honed, our fleet would have much more chances.
    6. The comment was deleted.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 January 2014 16: 35
    +4
    A set of meaningless facts and incorrect calculations. Such energy would be in a peaceful direction. The simplest question is whether Peter the Great is armored, and if so, how. The second question is whether the AB take-off deck performs the function of an armored deck. The third question, the Soviet anti-ship missiles are supersonic and have a semi-armor-piercing warhead of approx. 300 kg, for what purpose. The fourth question is whether the consequences of using typical enemy weapons are calculated on the designed ship, and whether the results of calculations are ignored or taken into account. In general, the facts and their interpretation are debatable, but the conclusion is not clear at all. What the author calls for to book or not, in the end.
    As for calls for reservations. Ships were armored when long-term fire and visual contact was required to defeat the enemy, with multiple hits and a mass of fragments. The enemy at that time was essentially firing similarly, and the outcome of the battle was often decided by simple luck. Now the battle is fleeting and, with proper planning, is unexpected for the victim. The fate of a small ship is decided by one, two missiles, in a couple of minutes, and the impact of ammunition is such that the armor does not help.
    1. Jin
      Jin 14 January 2014 01: 21
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      A set of meaningless facts and incorrect calculations.


      In general, I agree, from the article ambiguous impressions ... Let's just say, there are no conclusions. The topic has not been disclosed, and much of what the author has stated is very controversial. Moreover, it is not correct to compare cannon and rocket armament at least ... I mean that rocket armament implies different tactics and range of destruction. What does the armor have to do with it? Given that the battleship with its main caliber is unlikely to sink the same "Arleigh Burke", which at high speed and maneuvering, at maximum range, will fire anti-ship missiles, in response, at that battleship ... If it does not sink, what remains will hardly be a combat unit, with all its "belts", armor decks and other armor nishtyaks. An anti-ship missile is quite capable of knocking out, for example, the turret rotary mechanisms and not only, however ... not to mention the superstructures, etc. But what will the battleship answer to the destroyer? Pre-emptive shooting ??? If really, about modern guidance systems and their range, then missiles will make a kind of island-skeleton out of any ship. Will not drown? Well, okay, it will be incapacitated for a long time, quite enough ... This is if, at a primitive level, a hypothetical duel: a modern destroyer is a battleship, but most likely, everything will not be so prosaic (as part of any grouping, including submarines ) at both sides...
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 14 January 2014 14: 59
        0
        Quote: Jin
        Given that the battleship with its main caliber is unlikely to sink the same "Arleigh Burke", which at high speed and maneuvering, at maximum range, will fire anti-ship missiles

        Uh ... Nobody will do pure artillery ships, that's not the point. Although adjustable ammunition was not invented yesterday. We’ll put one or two 250-400mm guns, add four broadswords and universal launchers for supersonic anti-ship missiles and air defense systems and a couple of torpedo tubes. it’s how IT will glow on the radar screens. Well, and not to swim alone, what a manner
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 January 2014 17: 15
    +3
    In the end, there is an interesting comparison of the holes of the WWII destroyer and the Sheffield

    But if you think about it - well, a plane crashed at a speed of 350-400 km / h on its steel board, the bomb probably exploded from the outside. While discarded by the experienced hand of a German or Japanese pilot, she usually did this in the hold of a cruiser / destroyer, or even under the bottom. The ship lost speed and control.
    on the other hand, the low-powered Exocet and its unexploded 55kg of 165kg warheads end up in Sheffield's engine room, and four days later it sinks in the stormy Atlantic. It's simple.
    but to begin with, a subsonic racket pierced the side at an acute angle, ripped open 4,5m 10mm casing, sequentially destroyed the galley, the power plant control post and the combat information center premises, the survivability post, and only then ended up in the bow engine room. If she exploded at that moment, the ship would have turned inside out.
    "Stark" received the first missile also in the steel side at an acute angle - it passed at least 20 meters. If the French had reliable fuses with good deceleration, it would have toppled over. And so, the second rocket exploded barely breaking through the aluminum superstructure, the damage was less than from the first rocket. The missile hitting the Glamorgan exploded on the flight deck - the main damage was caused by the engine, which flew further into the hangar and under the deck, then the galley (the warhead would have exploded with a good delay in the stern MO).
    Critics will say about cardboard ships. Let's say. But the energy reserve of missiles, even such light ones, is huge and was not exhausted after hitting a side or deck.
    Of course, it was possible to continue to fence in the garden with the modernization of battleships and cruisers, but in 70-90 MTB (missile / dashboard boat) blossomed in a riotous color. Some Swedish Greek Turkish German Danish Norwegian French boat could easily turn the cruiser into flaming ruins, (even if not breaking through the armor) dropping 4-8 anti-ship missiles into it. And then 2-4 torpedoes in a blinded and deafened piece of iron
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 January 2014 17: 29
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Some Swedish Greek Turkish German Danish Norwegian French boat could easily turn a cruiser into flaming ruins

      What are the seaworthiness and cruising range restrictions for a Komar-type boat?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 January 2014 18: 15
        +1
        The mosquito is not MTB (though it doesn’t matter, Termite would have struck without torpedoes). These limitations are much greater than the range of the guns of any cruiser. He will not shoot from the center of the Atlantic
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 13 January 2014 18: 41
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          These limitations are much greater than the range of any cruiser’s guns.

          It's not about the range of the guns

          A large warship can operate in the middle of the Atlantic - where neither Komar nor the 1234 missiles can get
          As for the coastal waters, the mosquito fleet will be killed from the air like puppies

          Chip with boats - these days it does not roll
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 January 2014 19: 45
            +1
            In-in! will be killed from the air :)) when it comes to business, you immediately demand air defense, anti-aircraft defense, aviation support (maybe the hated AUG right away? since the middle of the Atlantic?), a 10: 1 power ratio won't hurt either, right? And forget about the armor.
            What happened ? Who is taking this glorious cruiser off, since he needed the help of his older brother, or aviation? is it really some 150-250 ton boat with missiles and a couple of good torpedoes!
            without aviation support, a cruiser is nothing. why the hell then armor?
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 13 January 2014 19: 59
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              is it really some kind of 150-250 ton boat with missiles and a couple of good torpedoes!

              In the coastal zone, the boat and the cruiser are equal - the radio horizon and the detection range are the same for everyone. RCC - close analogues. The cruiser has a chance to fight back (air defense / missile defense) - but to catch supersonic NLCs is a dubious and thankless task.

              If I were a Yankee, I would not venture to go to the coast without clearing the water area from feluccas and various rubbish (in fact, this happened during the Desert Storm).
              In the oil war, extra risk is useless
              aviation support (maybe immediately hated AUG?

              It's too much. The pelvis can be interrupted from a helicopter
          2. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 13 January 2014 21: 06
            +3
            A large warship can operate in the middle of the Atlantic

            You're right. The "actions" of large ships in the middle of the Atlantic will immediately undermine the economy of our country. Railway transportations along BAM and TRANSSIBU will sharply decrease or become impossible. The cascades of state district power stations on the Angara and Yenisei will immediately become aware of "actions in the middle of the Atlantic by large ships" will stop and stop generating electricity, and oil production in the north will decrease significantly. It will be impossible to deliver tanks from Chelyabink to Belarus, and there will simply be no fuel to refuel them. Understandably, it is necessary to immediately build more AUG and battleships in order to counter these terrible "actions" of enemy ships in the center of the Atlantic. And we really don't need a mosquito fleet, why should they go to our shore, because the economy has already been undermined by their "actions in the center of the Atlantic." A small camouflaged boat observing radio silence and waiting for an order to strike in the indicated direction will understandably be immediately destroyed "like a puppy" by eyed aircraft, which, like in a computer game, sees all enemy units in the form of red dots on the map, such a figle cannot really be killed. You have to become a general in the General Staff, to restore order in the army. And in fact, some fools got together, built some kind of boats, and in the Atlantic, what is happening.
            1. yehat
              yehat 14 January 2014 15: 46
              0
              I’ll add to your words. Even if the enemy kills all the boats, he will still have doubts - and he killed all the boats, because they are cheap, inconspicuous and numerous. So if they kill even everyone that the above confirms as a very difficult task,
              all the same, they won’t solve the problem, because fear remains - what if not everyone was killed?
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. yehat
            yehat 14 January 2014 15: 39
            0
            and against whom can one act in the middle of the Atlantic?
            Of the targets, only whales and sharks come to mind.
            Now the fleet is usually inextricably linked with the shore
            and shore means planes and a cloud of rockets, bombs and other pleasures.
            You can even forget about the mosquito fleet.
            and in a word, the Tu-22m kept a third of the Atlantic in fear of their raid.
          4. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 13 January 2014 20: 52
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Thanks to their compactness, these missiles are extremely massive and ubiquitous - practically any ships (from a boat to a battleship), aircraft (several fighter-bombers can take several at once!) Can serve as their carriers; from trailers and shelters - how much imagination the developers have enough.

        Still. Vitality. The British sewed Scharnhorst point-blank, but he did not sink, they finished off with torpedoes. Not the armor but the excellent division into compartments (German school) provided survivability. And about Sheffield, everyone knows how, after the conflict, they began to relate to light aluminum alloys in shipbuilding, for example.
  • Cristall
    Cristall 13 January 2014 22: 23
    +1
    you have a heated debate here. Either about aircraft carriers, then about armor.
    Of course, I like battleships, but I didn’t hear news about bookmarks of some new ones. The reverse trend ... If the armor can demonstrate its effectiveness, why the shipyards of the world still have not released a little more or less prototype of a new generation armadillo? Tanks are trying to protect them with dynamic and other defenses, they increase their armor ... but there are no ships.
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 January 2014 23: 23
      +1
      Quote: Cristall
      would a prototype armadillo a new generation?

      Who will release him?
      Do you know what the English admirals said when they bought a patent for Fulton’s submarine?
      The United States does not make sense to undermine the .. faith .. in the kingdom of aircraft carriers.
      China - copy pasteors
      and there is no such situation in the fleet as it was at the end of the 19 in the middle of the 20 centuries.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 13 January 2014 23: 29
    +1
    Quote: SIT
    If you make warheads of such a caliber as RCC, then the cumulative stream will burn everything in its path from side to side.

    This was the X-22.
  • disa
    disa 14 January 2014 00: 36
    0
    Cool articles ... it turns out that the armor is not "iron", but "elictronic" ...
  • c3r
    c3r 14 January 2014 05: 35
    0
    Not a bad, and most importantly well-reasoned article. But there are some minor inaccuracies. The main reason for the sinking of the Sheffield was not the lack of armor, but, first of all, the insufficient organization of the formation's air defense and the very poor organization of the fight for survivability both on the ship and on the formation. memory does not change, he was drowning for 7 hours. By the way, after that in the English fleet they began to pay great attention to ensuring survivability. In addition, there is no such thing as combat survivability, there is simply survivability, which is defined as the ability of ships to withstand combat and emergency damage, restoring and maintaining to the extent possible their combat readiness. I myself am in favor of booking, but it should not be armor of the early or mid-20th century, but armor made of composite materials with the use of active protection protecting the deck and the rooms most affecting survivability (engine room, fuel tanks, cellars, etc.) and at the same time not reducing the maneuverability and speed characteristics of the ship required for evasion. And as practice shows, a competently executed evasion with timely applied interference often does not give the rocket a chance.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 14 January 2014 15: 09
      0
      Quote: c3r
      By the way, after that, in the Aglitsky fleet, much attention was paid to ensuring survivability

      During the sinking of the battleship "Victoria" as a result of a collision with a colleague, the bulkhead doors were not battened down - "after that, the English fleet began to pay great attention to ensuring survivability."
      History repeats itself over and over
      We also had examples of Port Arthur, Tsushima and June 22, 1941, but until the thunder strikes, the man will not cross himself