Military Review

Battleship - the weapon of the winners!

163



After the battle, the sailors calculated: they needed to make 2876 shots with a main, medium and universal caliber, before the Bismarck turned into flaming ruins and completely lost its combat capability. Seeing his condition, the British cruisers got close and fired a torpedo salvo. From that moment on, the German battleship was no longer a tenant. The crew opened the Kingston, and the wounded "Bismarck" went to the bottom, and did not lower the flag in the face of the enemy.

“Whistles, and rattles, and rumbles around. The thunder of cannons, the hiss of shells ... "

Fortunately, naval battles involving large warships, with the exchange of powerful blows and with enormous destruction were very rare. Midway, the battle in Leyte Gulf or the aforementioned pursuit of Bismarck, which was preceded by a fleeting but bloody battle in the Danish Channel ... stories World War II will be typed only a few dozen of these "episodes".

As for large successful battles involving battleships, there are not so few such cases as is commonly believed. But not so much on the scale of the Second World War.

Fighting in Atlantic waters (battleships and their trophies):

- aircraft carrier Glories (sunk by fire of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau battle cruisers, 08.06.40);

- French battleship "Brittany" - sunk, battleships "Dunkirk", "Provence" and the leader of the destroyers "Mogador" - damaged (the attack on the French fleet in Mars el Kebir in order not to allow him to pass into the hands of the Third Reich. In battle, distinguished themselves British battleship “Hood”, battleships “Barham” and “Resolution”, 03.07.40);

- Italian heavy cruisers “Zara” and “Fiume” (sunk by the fire of the LK “Barham”, “Veliyent” and “Worspite” in the battle at m. Matapan, 28.03.41 g.);

- the battle cruiser “Hood” (sunk by the fire of the LC “Bismarck”, 24.05.41);

- Bismarck battleship (sunk by the fire of the British battleships Rodney and King George V, with the participation of cruisers and deck aviation May 27.05.41, XNUMX);

- the battle cruiser "Scharnhorst" (heavily damaged by the fire of the LC "Duke of York", finished off with British torpedoes, 26.12.43, with torpedoes);

Battleship - the weapon of the winners!

"Scharnhorst"

This may also include the exchange of fire in Calabria and the battle of the British battle cruiser Rinaun with the German Gneisenau — both times without serious consequences.

Another couple of cases of firing from the Main caliber: the American battleship Massachusetts shot an unfinished Jean Bar in Casablanca, another French battleship Richelieu was damaged by the fire of the British battleships Barham and Resolution in the attack on Dakar.

You can also calculate 24 transport and tanker that were captured or sunk during the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau raids into the North Atlantic. Here, perhaps, all the trophies of battleships in the Old World.


French Jean Bart outlived all his peers, was expelled fleet only in 1961


Fighting in the Pacific:

- liner cruiser “Kirisima” (destroyed by fire of the South Dakota and Washington DCs in a night battle at Guadalcanal, 14.11.42);

- battleship "Yamashiro" (sunk by fire of LC "West Virginia", "California", "Maryland", "Tennessee" and "Mississippi" with the participation of destroyers in the Surigao Strait, 25.10.44);

Also in battle at about. Samar was sunk by the escort aircraft carrier Gambier Bay and three destroyers, several more escort aircraft carriers were damaged by the fire of the Japanese squadron. On that day, the battleship Yamato first opened fire on the enemy. The specific results of his shooting remained unknown.

Agree, the number of victories is small.


In battle, the Italians! "Littorio" and "Vittorio"

Are the battleships outdated? Let's say.

But how can we explain that there were only six carrier-based duels in the vast Pacific Television (Coral Sea, Midway, Solomon Islands, Santa Cruz, the Battle of the Mariana Islands and Cape Engano). And that's it! Over the remaining four years, aircraft carriers smashed bases, attacked single ships and struck the coast.

The US Marines, supported by thousands of ships, stormed the Japanese defensive perimeter on the Pacific Islands. Submarines "cut" enemy communications. The destroyers intercepted the "Tokyo express trains" and covered the convoys. Battleships used to fight with each other, but most of the time they dealt with problems far from naval combat. North Carolyn, South Dakota and other monsters provided squadrons with air defense and shelled coastal fortifications, while their small Japanese rivals stood in bases, “licking” their wounds.

The war turned into an endless chain of short fights, in which aviation, submarines and anti-submarine / escort ships (destroyers, frigates, boats) played the decisive role. Large warships - aircraft carriers and battleships - were responsible for the overall situation in the theater of operations, by their very presence not allowing the enemy to use similar means to disrupt landing operations and disperse "small" ships.

Great standing of battleships

A similar situation was observed in European waters since 1942: Allied heavy artillery ships were regularly involved in assault assault fire, while few of the battleships and heavy cruisers of Germany and Italy remained idle in bases without any adequate missions or chances. for success if they go to sea. To go somewhere under the rule of the enemy at sea and in the air meant certain death. Poor on glory and orders, the British admirals will throw dozens of ships and combat aircraft to intercept such a “tasty” target. With obvious consequences.


British battle cruiser "Ripals" in the campaign

Best of all, under these conditions, the Germans played, turning the Tirpitz parking into a powerful bait, which for three years attracted the attention of the metropolitan fleet. Unsuccessful squadron attacks on the Alta Fjord, 700 air sorties, abandoned by the PQ-17 convoy, attacks of special operations forces using mini-submarines ... Tirpitz shook his nerves to us and our allies, and finally, 5- Tollboy ton bombs. Other, less shocking means, proved ineffective against him.

However, Tirpitz had a “protégé” in the form of his deceased brother — the meeting with Bismarck shook the British Admiralty so much that the rest of the war the British suffered a battleship phobia and shook at the thought: “What if Tirpitz goes to sea”?

In the "standing of battleships" there was another reason of an economic nature. Fuel consumption for the rise of vapors in the Tirpitz boilers was equivalent to the wolf pack march of submarines! Impermissible luxury for resource limited Germany.

Battleships against the shore

26 December The last battle of battleships died down in European waters: a British squadron led by the battleship Duke of York sank the German Sharhorst in a battle at Cape Norkup.

From this point on, the Axis countries' battleships were inactive. The battleships of the Royal Navy switched to routine tasks - covering the landing forces and firing on enemy fortifications on the coast.



Landing on Sicily (summer 1943) was largely done without the support of heavy naval guns: five British battleships only had to open fire on the coast. But all subsequent landings and coastal operations were carried out with the direct participation of the battleships.

The landing in Normandy was covered by British and American battleships 7 — Waspay, Rammils, Rodney, Nelson and their overseas counterparts — Texas, Arkansas and Nevada, supported by heavy cruisers and British monitors 15-inch guns!

Here are brief excerpts about their combat work:

Both the battleship and the monitor focused their fire on the hardened batteries of Willerville, Benerville and Houlgate. K 9 h. 30 min. the batteries were silent and did not open fire in the following days, although they were in very strong concrete fortifications. 6's “Worspite” June bombarded Willerville's battery six times, fired a 73 projectile, and made 9 direct hits.


7 June took action "Rodney". Worspite bombarded various targets, including the Benerville battery. From the beginning of the landing, he fired three hundred and fourteen 381-mm shells (133 armor-piercing and 181 high-explosive), and in the evening of the same day went to Portsmouth to replenish ammunition. Shelling of enemy targets was continued by Rodney and Nelson, and Ramilles was aimed at supporting the Allied landings in southern France.


Worspite returned on June 10 and was ordered to support the American bridgehead in the west of the landing area. The battleship fired 96 with 381-mm shells with four targets and received thanks from the American command.


“Worspite” came to the British sector at Arromanche. Here he used artillery to repel the enemy’s counterattack in the English 50 Division’s action lane. On the evening of the same day, the battleship returned to Portsmouth, and from there went to Rosyth to replace the worn gun barrels.




But the story from the cycle "Yankee against the coastal batteries of Cherbourg":

The battleship "Nevada" in 12 h 12 mines opened fire with 356 mm guns at a target located in 5 km southwest of Kerkeville. Shooting was corrected from the shore, and the shells lay exactly on the target. In 12 h 29 mines from the shore received a message: "You hit the target." After another 5 minutes, when Nevada fired 18 shots, they said from the shore: “Good fire. Your shells smoke them. ” 25 minutes after the start of the shelling, 12 h 37 min, received a new message: “They show a white shield, but we have learned not to pay any attention to it, keep on firing”.


The large-caliber guns of the battleships proved to be the only effective means against well-fortified coastal forts, armored bunkers and batteries. It was unreasonably difficult, expensive, and often impossible to call up bomber aircraft with concrete bombs and Tollboys each time.


40 years have passed, but "New Jersey" continues to beat out of guns and start "Tomahawks"

Shipboard artillery was distinguished by its mobility and short reaction time: within a few minutes after receiving the request, a point with the indicated coordinates was covered with a volley of heavy shells. The shots of the guns of the battleships gave confidence to the forces of the landing force and demoralized the personnel of the German units.

In the absence of an equal force at sea of ​​the enemy, the British and US battleships proved to be excellent assault vehicles. Their guns “smeared” any target within the range of their fire, and the thick-skinned monsters themselves were less susceptible to the return fire of coastal batteries. They equated enemy positions with the ground, smashed bunkers and pillboxes, covered landing forces and mine-sweeping ships operating near the coast.


Bathroom in the admiral cabin of the battleship museum USS Iowa (BB-61)
In memory of the journey of FD Roosevelt aboard battleship across the Atlantic

On the high seas, they were used as powerful air defense platforms to cover squadrons and aircraft carrier formations, used as VIP transport for the highest officials of the state (Roosevelt’s journey aboard the Iowa battleship to the Tehran-43 conference) and similar tasks, where excellent security, killer artillery and monumental appearance.

Battleship - weapon winners

Battleships are ineffective in combat against an equal opponent. The farewell volleys at North Cape and in the Surigao Strait became the “swan song” of the battleship fleet. Together with the Scharnhorst and Yamashiro, all outdated concepts of sea battles developed in the first half of the twentieth century went into oblivion.

Situational awareness of the battleship compared to the aircraft is too small. And any submarine will repeatedly surpass the battleship in the secrecy and general rationality of the conduct of military operations at sea. By the end of the Second World War, the battleship was preserved only as a means of fire support. Extremely offensive means for destructive shelling of the coast.

It is to this that the failures of the Italian, German and Japanese battleships are largely explained. Under the circumstances, they could not reveal their potential and were of little use.

There is no sadder story in the world than the story of Yamato and Musashi

The largest non-aircraft ships in history could not cause significant damage to the enemy and were ineptly lost under the strikes of enemy aircraft.

“These ships resemble calligraphic religious scrolls that old men hang in their homes. They have not proven their worth. This is only a matter of faith, not reality ... the battleships will be useful to Japan in a future war just like a samurai sword. ”


Admiral Yamamoto was well aware that in the future war of Japan there would be no time for entertainment with shelling of coastal forts. The imperial fleet will have to sneak "Tokyo express trains" at night, and to flee during the day under the blows of superior enemy forces.

The century of battleships approached its sunset, and it was worth spending the money spent on the construction of Yamato and Musashi in a different, more rational way.



Of course, from the standpoint of our days, it is obvious: regardless of the prophetic phrases and ingenious strategic moves to Isorok Yamamoto, the war was lost at the very moment when the first bomb fell on Pearl Harbor. Reflections on the construction of new aircraft carriers instead of superlinkers are far from reality. Imagine for a moment that the Japanese built a pair of ships like the Litter instead of the Yamato ... And what would it give?

For aircraft carriers we need modern aircraft and experienced pilots - who could not be taken in sufficient quantities. Let us recall how the campaign went on in the Marianas Islands (summer 1944): the ratio of air losses was 1: 10, one of the Yankees pilots on this occasion dropped the sacramental phrase: “Damn, this is like a turkey hunt”!

The campaign in the Philippines was even brighter and more tragic - the Japanese managed to "scrape together" all 116 aircraft on the 4 aircraft carrier (moreover, the Japanese pilots did not have adequate experience, and their aircraft lost to American aircraft in all TTX). The once-proud Kido Butai was assigned the humiliating role ... bait for US aircraft carrier groups. Cruising forces and battleships had to strike the main blow.

On top of that, carrier ships had extremely low survivability and sometimes died from hitting just one bomb or torpedo - a critical flaw in terms of the numerical superiority of the enemy. In contrast to the protected cruisers and battleships, which could go for hours under the blows of the Americans (for example, Takeo Kurita squadron).

One way or another, Japanese superlinkors were built. Participated in the battle. Showed excellent vitality. The battleships and their crews kept to the last drop of blood, until the end of their duty.

The Japanese leadership is deservedly reproached for the incorrect use of these ships - they should have been thrown into battle earlier. For example, under Midway. But who knew that everything will turn out so sad for the Japanese ... pure coincidence.

Yamato and Musashi could play an important role in Guadalcanal. But human frugality intervened: the leadership of all the fleets were able to keep their most powerful, secret weapon for the “general battle” (which, of course, would never happen).

It was not worth it so classified unique ships, but it was necessary, on the contrary, to turn them into a powerful PR project to intimidate the enemy. Shocked by the main Yamato caliber (460 mm), the Americans would rush to build their superlinkers with the caliber of 508 mm guns - in general, it would be fun.

Alas, the battleships were thrown into battle too late, when there were no more tricks and tactical moves. And yet, the moral aspect of the military career of Yamato and Musashi surpassed all others, turning ships into legends.

The Japanese still cherish the memory of their Varyag, the battleship Yamato, which, in fact, alone went against eight aircraft carriers and six battleships of the US Navy's 58 operational connection. On such stories is built the spirit and pride of the nation.


Museum of Military Glory "Yamato" in Kure




Based on:
http://wunderwafe.ru
http://www.battleships.spb.ru
http://www.wikipedia.org
Books: A. B. Shirokorad, Hitler's Atlantic Wall; Patients A. G., “Duels of aircraft carriers. The culmination of the Second World War! ”
Author:
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 10 February 2014 08: 44
    +21
    For the most part, naval commanders were preoccupied with thoughts about how to protect these mastodons, and not about what could be done with their help.
    1. Civil
      Civil 10 February 2014 09: 36
      +1
      The political leadership of the countries cherished these expensive toys, not allowing the fleet leadership to be used to the full extent, as in the story with Tirpitz
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 10 February 2014 10: 24
        +3
        Quote: Civil
        leverage

        Full and mean? smile
      2. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 14: 44
        0
        Quote: Civil
        The political leadership of the countries cherished these expensive toys, not allowing the fleet leadership to be used to the full extent, as in the story with Tirpitz

        Read about the actions of our Black Sea Fleet and Northern Fleet (after the delivery of the battleship to land lease). Stupid standing in the bases, instead of using outdated launchers as batteries for landings. And this is the death of people who were exchanged for the death of outdated iron (especially in the SF, where LK was Lend-Lease, i.e. it was previously considered drowned.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 10 February 2014 19: 02
          +3
          Quote: Vasya
          Stupid standing in the bases, instead of using outdated launchers as batteries for landings.

          eh, Vasya, to drown them was like two fingers .... The anti-aircraft gun there was a cat crying. Yes and a lot of mines were thrown. And in the north wolf packs snooping.
          The Paris Commune even at night went into shelling, in the absence of pl on the Black Sea ...
    2. Canep
      Canep 10 February 2014 10: 03
      +3
      Quote: Vladimirets
      For the most part, naval commanders were preoccupied with thoughts about how to protect these mastodons, and not about what could be done with their help.

      That's for sure, battleships are good for intimidation and in real battles - target number 1. They have a place in museums. If Hitler, in the place of Bismarck and Tirpitz, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, would have built submarines with a total displacement of 150000 tons, would have received 100 additional submarines, it is not known how the war would have ended, the Americans most likely could not supply Britain.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 10 February 2014 10: 45
        0
        Already in the 44th year, the "Wolf Pack" was not the same as before. And the Americans might also have come up with an underwater transport. It would be interesting to see.
      2. nagi
        nagi 10 February 2014 12: 15
        +4
        In addition to the construction of hundreds of submarines, it is also required to prepare teams for them, and this is not so simple.
        1. Val_y
          Val_y 10 February 2014 16: 36
          +3
          Precisely, the boats of the last series were built, and ordered Marinescu, "Wilhelm Gustlov" slammed and mustache, ala-ulyu, the submarine war ended, tk. it had crews of almost all boats soldier
      3. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 10 February 2014 12: 18
        +3
        After the "New Year's battle" where the Kriegsmarine screwed up in full, Hitler ordered the battleships and heavy cruisers to be melted down. Tanks to do. Defended by Doenitz, with difficulty. In any case, it was already "late to rush". The Fuehrer just squealed not about the submarine, but about how many tanks could be made. Well, in general, it's good that such a breakthrough of Germany's resources went to battleships.
        1. Ximik-degozator
          Ximik-degozator 10 February 2014 18: 57
          +1
          What is the reason for defending them? I think he would be with both hands for! Only would suggest not to make tanks, but all the same submarines ... winked
          1. Nexus 6
            Nexus 6 10 February 2014 19: 54
            +2
            Raeder resigned after such embarrassment. Doenitz, as a successor, defended. Read his memoirs (Doenitz) for example.
      4. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 14: 57
        +1
        Quote: Canep
        They have a place in museums

        Yeah of course.
        Name at least one anti-ship missile that can penetrate the armor belt of the LK ????
        I hope you agree that the shell is cheaper than a rocket. On coastal targets (at ranges up to 40 km), this floating battery will work more efficiently than AB.
        Quote: Canep
        If Hitler, in the place of Bismarck and Tirpitz, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, would have built submarines with a total displacement of 150000 tons, would have received 100 additional submarines, it is not known how the war would have ended, the Americans most likely could not supply Britain.

        If he had not been forced to fight against us, then these ships would be useful against the Anglo-Saxons (to support the same submarines (see the discussion about OUR AV on the site))
        There is a policy. And it is precisely in it that the shipbuilding program should be built.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 10 February 2014 15: 21
          +4
          Quote: Vasya
          Name at least one anti-ship missile that can penetrate the armor belt of the LK ????

          Yes, she doesn’t need to pierce it, all the most vulnerable and "tasty" of modern ships is above the deck, damage the masts, antennas, radars, superstructures with ship control systems and weapons and the battleship will turn into a wonderful floating ammunition depot and service personnel.
          Quote: Vasya
          On coastal targets (at ranges up to 40 km), this floating battery will work more efficiently than AB.

          Who in the modern world will let him approach the coast at 40 km? Well, if only the armed forces of Guyana.
          1. Santa Fe
            10 February 2014 16: 39
            +1
            Quote: Vladimirets
            damage masts, antennas, radars

            Can you even imagine the number of radars on board a modern ship? Their location?
            http://topwar.ru/39560-linkor-oruzhie-pobediteley.html#comment-id-1937500

            Moreover, launching the Tomahawks and firing a cannon at 40 km is absolutely not required for this
            Quote: Vladimirets
            Well, if only the armed forces of Guyana.

            A ship like Iowa poses a threat to most modern nations, ranging from Guyana and Libya to Brazil and Iran.

            According to statistics, 30% of the world's population lives no further than 50 km from the sea coast. In the coastal strip 200 km wide, more than half of the cities of the whole world are concentrated! Hamburg, Istanbul, Tokyo, New York, Shanghai, Madras, Rio de Janeiro ...

            By the way, do you have any suggestions for a war with Guyana? Drive there "Peter the Great" or cardboard "Orly Burke"? The savages will fire a salvo of C-802 (cheap Chinese anti-ship missiles Yingzi) from behind the bushes, and Peter and Burke will not be happy, as in their time the Glamorgan, Sheffield or Cole crashed. Moreover, the filling of modern ships is worth billions, and is covered with a 10 mm side - penetrable by any means, from anti-ship missiles to mortar mines and boats with explosives.



            The Yankees themselves admit that most of the problems in recent local wars could be solved by the fire of naval guns - in reality, they were used only a couple of times - off the coast of Lebanon in the early 80s, destroying the positions of the Syrian air defense systems and the bunker with the commander of the Syrian troops in Lebanon. Then in the early 90s they were used to clean up the coast of Iraq. Now they are building "Zamvolts" with six-inch, shooting at 100+ km
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 10 February 2014 17: 25
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Can you even imagine the number of radars on board a modern ship? Their location?

              A large number does not guarantee their high survivability, alas.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Moreover, launching the Tomahawks and firing a cannon at 40 km is absolutely not required for this

              Not required? In fair weather and during the day. Likely for firing of guns GK and rangefinders are not required, and the sights. The pelvis dangles in the sea and peels with the main caliber in white light, like a pretty penny.
              Is it only LC that can carry Tomahawks? And for much less money.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              By the way, do you have any suggestions for a war with Guyana? Drive there "Peter the Great" or cardboard "Orly Burke"? The savages will fire a salvo of C-802 (cheap Chinese anti-ship missiles Yingzi) from behind the bushes, and Peter and Burke will not be happy, as in their time the Glamorgan, Sheffield or Cole crashed. Moreover, the filling of modern ships is worth billions, and is covered with a 10 mm side - penetrable by any means, from anti-ship missiles to mortar mines and boats with explosives.

              And why the hell with them to approach the bushes on the coast? That's just the guidance systems of the Civil Code and are vulnerable to everything that reaches them, at least handle the City.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Yankees themselves admit that most of the tasks in recent local wars could be solved by ship gunfire

              It turns out interestingly, "could have been decided," so what hasn't been decided? Ineffective? Expensive? Is it scary to lose such a combat unit? The Yankees are not fools, since they did not decide (although they had such coffins in service), then there was no point.
              1. Santa Fe
                10 February 2014 17: 50
                0
                Quote: Vladimirets
                A large number does not guarantee their high survivability, alas.

                Soft with warm

                Detection and SLA of a modern ship cannot be disabled by the only direct hit of a projectile / anti-ship missiles - due to their large number and dispersal
                Quote: Vladimirets
                Not required?

                Not required.

                Tomahawk flies over pre-laid TERCOM reliefometric rockets (as an option for 109E - according to GPS data)
                Artillery fire at a distance of 40 km is adjusted according to UAV data (E-8 J-STARS?) Or ground-based spotters

                The same goes for anti-ship missiles - no radar is required to launch them
                Quote: Vladimirets
                Is it only LC that can carry Tomahawks?

                The battleship can shoot from large-caliber artillery, which matters when a third of the world's population lives no more than 50 km from the coast.

                And he has armor - protecting the ship from anti-ship missiles, coastal batteries and boats with martyrs - typical force majeure of local wars.
                Quote: Vladimirets
                And why the hell with the Kyrgyz Republic to approach the bushes on the coast?

                SLCM Tomahawk costs 2 million dollars
                Shot 406 mm - tens of thousands of dollars
                155 and 127 mm shots - even cheaper
                Quote: Vladimirets
                so what has not been decided?

                Inertia of thinking and mediocrity of command

                The Yankees admit a mistake - most targets could be hit by a battleship. I brought their own document
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 10 February 2014 19: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Shot 406 mm - tens of thousands of dollars

                  Considering their accumulated reserves. As one Yankee said: "Each shot saves taxpayers a certain amount: (in terms of the cost of storing the shells)
                  Using old is profitable.
                  Building new ones is doubtful.
                  1. cosmos111
                    cosmos111 10 February 2014 21: 07
                    0
                    Quote: Pilat2009
                    Using old is profitable.
                    Building new ones is doubtful.

                    it is not profitable to use old stuff >>>> high operating costs and constant maintenance (((((
                    for missile systems using civilian disguise future (((((
                2. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 10 February 2014 19: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Soft with warm

                  That you mix soft with warm. What does the quantity have to do with it, and where did I write about one hit? You rely on the armor and size of the ship, I say that it is not necessary to heat it, you can damage its systems such that its value will be even more doubtful than that of the whole.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Tomahawk flies over pre-laid TERCOM reliefometric rockets (as an option for 109E - according to GPS data)
                  Artillery fire at a distance of 40 km is adjusted according to UAV data (E-8 J-STARS?) Or ground-based spotters

                  The same goes for anti-ship missiles - no radar is required to launch them

                  In general, we slipped into a discussion of the capabilities of the Kyrgyz Republic and the RCC, but generally the Battleship, by definition, is an artillery ship. The Yankees, who stuffed their KR ships, simply wanted to give it at least some value in modern conditions. And the battleship with the KR, in general, is not exactly a battleship, do not you? Armored TCR, as you wish, but not a battleship.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The battleship can shoot from large-caliber artillery, which matters when a third of the world's population lives no more than 50 km from the coast.

                  This third of the population was given to you. The meaning of shelling rubber plantations of the same Guyana ( smile ), which one? Those countries that have something to lose in coastal areas have something to oppose to these irons. The battleship going to the enemy’s shores, having received at least one or two torpedoes on board, subject to a competent and timely BZ, will certainly stay afloat, but it is unlikely to go further, but will return to the base, to put patches.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    10 February 2014 21: 24
                    -1
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    it can cause damage to his systems, after which his value will be even more doubtful

                    Why not, try
                    While the Syrians (Iraqis? Libyans?) Tear off one HEADLIGHT for him, he will already tear off the Syrians head

                    Moreover, the combat capabilities of such a battleship do not depend on the safety of the masts and antenna devices. To launch Axes, Granites and Caliber, no radar is required, as well as for firing cannons over the horizon
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    Battleship, by definition, an artillery ship

                    And he does not need three wooden masts?))
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    The Yankees, who stuffed their KR ships, simply wanted to give it at least some value in modern conditions.

                    In Lebanon, he fired exclusively from guns - and achieved great success.

                    Any value in modern conditions? Are the guns outdated? But how do you explain the construction of three Zamvolt-class missile and artillery destroyers (the lead one was launched in 2013)?
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    Armored TCR, as you wish, but not a battleship.

                    What's the difference. It combines the best quality of WWII battleships and modern technology.
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    The meaning of shelling rubber plantations in Guyana

                    Under the crowns of trees are air defense systems (as in the Lebanese valley of Bekaa)

                    You can flatten any airfield, warehouse, base or rebellious city - New Jersey beat at 45 km. Zamvolt promises 160 km range with guided ammunition
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    A battleship going to enemy shores, having received at least one or two torpedoes on board

                    Torpedo - a difficult weapon
                    To launch them you need a submarine
                    1. Vladimirets
                      Vladimirets 10 February 2014 22: 59
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      And he does not need three wooden masts?))

                      Why exaggerate, or nothing to argue? Battleship is an artillery ship with the main guns of large caliber and various types of armor.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Zamvolt promises a range of 160 km with guided ammunition

                      Did he promise you?
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      You can flatten any airfield,

                      Yeah, as long as this floating battery arrives, aviation will drown it 10 times.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Torpedo - a difficult weapon
                      To launch them you need a submarine

                      Seriously? what Damn, but I didn’t know. I completely forgot that this superweapon is intended for
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      flatten the rebellious city

                      The rebels, in addition to the AK, have nothing. It is assumed that the battleship will be used against air defense systems under palm trees. good
                      1. Santa Fe
                        10 February 2014 23: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        Battleship is an artillery ship with the main guns of large caliber and various types of armor.

                        What does this have to do with the matter. Though call a frigate.

                        We are talking about highly protected missile and artillery ships for local wars. The capabilities of their armor and artillery are compared with real prototypes - battleships of WWII times
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        Did he promise you?

                        There is nothing fantastic about it.

                        Let the firing range in real conditions be 50-100 km - this will be an excellent result
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        Yeah, as long as this floating battery arrives, aviation will drown it 10 times.

                        For this there is an air defense system and air cover
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        The rebels, in addition to the AK, have nothing.

                        Barreled artillery, tanks, Yinji anti-ship missiles, MANPADS - such as Hamas or Hezbollah
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        It is assumed that the battleship will be used against air defense systems under palm trees.

                        Well, what did you think. This is a colonial cruiser for local oil wars. The enemy is obviously weak, but with the connivance of the operation planning department (and it will always be) can deliver a couple of sensitive blows. This is where the armor comes in handy

                        And the guns will help reduce the cost of the war - after all, on every palm from the air defense systems of the two millionth Tomahawks you will not stock up

                        For a war at sea with an equal adversary, other things will be required - first of all, a submarine fleet. Although there the missile and artillery battleship will be very useful

                        Zamvolt!
                      2. cosmos111
                        cosmos111 11 February 2014 00: 06
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        We are talking about highly protected missile and artillery ships for local wars.

                        for a local war, better than an aircraft carrier group, there’s nothing else they didn’t come up with (((
                        gunboat era has passed ((((
                        wars will begin, with missile strikes and strikes
                        UAVs, ship guns, this is a purely defensive weapon (((
                        if they didn’t adopt electromagnetic guns (((((((
                      3. Basarev
                        Basarev 12 February 2014 20: 07
                        0
                        It looks somehow faded and nondescript in comparison with the railgun of Artsimovich
                3. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 10 February 2014 23: 06
                  -1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  At least some value in modern conditions? Are the guns obsolete?

                  No guns, caliber and the concept itself yes.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  But how do you explain the construction of three Zamvolt-class missile and artillery destroyers (the lead one was launched in 2013)?

                  This is a great secret, I think that they are, after all, missile, and the gun mount is for "driving someone small."
                  1. Santa Fe
                    11 February 2014 03: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    No guns, caliber and the concept itself yes.

                    There is only one concept - firing ship cannons along the shore. In aglitsky it sounds like Naval Gunfire Support.
                    It is under it that shock Zamvolt is created

                    Billing Caliber - 406 mm redundant. 155 mm is quite enough when firing guided projectiles, 305 mm is the maximum
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    I think that they are, after all, missile, and the gun mount is for "drive someone small."

                    Quite the contrary, there the entire destroyer is built around the 155 mm AGS guns

                    The number of missile silos has been reduced to 80 cells (for comparison, their Ticonderoga have 122)

                    The main weapon - 2 guns of caliber 155 mm, the combat unit 600 (!) Shots + 320 in a non-mechanized cellar
                4. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 11 February 2014 08: 49
                  +1
                  What kind of Papuans are those who have air defense systems under the crowns of trees and have no money for RCC?
                  New Jersey spent 36 16-inch shells on one killed Vietnamese (30 tons of shells GK).
                  A torpedo is launched from the coast - remember Blucher. Skerries, straits, fjords - the world is full of narrowness, where the battleship does not even go if there is a small-sized six-inch battery or anti-ship missiles.
                  New Jersey Korean 6-inches did not like :)). Port Arthur, Gallipoli, Dakar, Dixon's "mighty" batteries :)), Moonsund, Chinese field artillery against a British cruiser - armored ships got lulled and dumped. The Yankee marines, who, without waiting for the battleships to suppress the firing points, simply bypassed the cities, or even went to storm the batteries themselves. A dozen battleships and cruisers supported by aviation against some beach or atoll, a battleship that does not meet Papuans' resistance is a weak argument.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    11 February 2014 21: 53
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    in which air defense systems are under the crowns of trees, but there is no money for RCC?

                    Phalanx reservations
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    New Jersey spent 36 16-inch shells on one killed Vietnamese

                    We do not know the goals and objectives of the battleship
                    where were those Vietnamese-m. in an armored bunker
                    what was the firing range, who adjusted the fire

                    3% was the accuracy of fire in the Tsushima battle. WWII showed 10%. It is easy to imagine what accuracy is today - with digital ballistic computers, modern communication systems and fire adjustment according to J-STARS / UAV. And this is without taking into account high-precision b / p, such as Krasnopol!
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Torpedo and from the coast launch

                    The torpedo is not RCC Yinji. She has an order of magnitude less range and mobility (at times large dimensions and weight - the difficulty of transportation), the need to launch directly from the beach, on the beam of which there is a battleship.

                    Fixed coastal torpedo launchers (Blucher) - these days are too noticeable and vulnerable target.

                    + take into account the appearance of RBU and anti-torpedo defense systems - a heavy torpedo volley will be required so that one or two break through to the target
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    New Jersey Korean 6 -inches did not like :))

                    What are you saying))
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Dixon's "mighty" batteries

                    The lone raider in the Arctic was no joke.
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Moonsund

                    Suppression of the uprising of the Red Hill and Gray Horse forts by the battleships of the Baltic Fleet
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Chinese field artillery against the British cruiser

                    That "cruiser" is an unarmored pelvis
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    The Yankee Marines, who did not wait for the battleships to suppress the firing points, simply went around the cities

                    You probably wanted to say atolls))
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    A dozen battleships and cruisers supported by aviation against any beach or atoll, a battleship that does not meet the resistance of the Papuans

                    How do you like this argument - 7 out of 9 targets of Operation Eldorado Canyon were in the range of battleships' fire. Do you think you could handle worse than the A-6 and F-111 with free-fall bombs?
                  2. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 12 February 2014 05: 13
                    0
                    Cities. It was in Italy
                  3. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 12 February 2014 05: 54
                    +1
                    "Stationary coastal torpedo launchers (Blucher) - these days too noticeable and vulnerable target" (C) - well, so welcome to the fjords, skerries, Dardanelles and other narrowness! Or will the aviation have to be called?

                    "How do you like this argument - 7 out of 9 targets of Operation Eldorado Canyon were within the range of battleships' fire." (C) - 7 out of 9? - that means you can't do without aviation. targets are scattered along a wide front - aviation is indispensable. a sudden and lightning strike? - you can't do without aviation. strike from many directions - call the aviation.
                    and if you have a lot of money and Tomahawks, you can run without battleships - easily
                  4. Santa Fe
                    12 February 2014 15: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Cities. It was in Italy

                    On June 17, Worspight fired at enemy artillery positions on the coast near Catania. The ship fired 57 381 mm shells. The enemy positions were not seriously destroyed, and the paratroopers simply bypassed the city.
                    Italy is not atolls and the Atlantic rampart. It was a funny walk with the allies.
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    welcome to the fjords, skerries,

                    Say hello to RBU and PTZ + reconnaissance systems

                    Those. when meeting with the LC, ALREADY great difficulties arise - it is necessary to get out to the very edge of the coast, to carry bulky, expensive and slow torpedoes with you. Catch it in certain places (fjords, skerries - a lot of them in the Persian Gulf?) ....

                    And the destroyer Burke can be shot in the same skerries with recoilless bombs and mortars. He generally can not approach the shore.
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    goals are spread out on a wide front - aviation can not do

                    2 goals or 9 - is there a difference in the number of aircraft involved? There, one lost F-111 flew into 100 million.
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    sudden and lightning strike?

                    Artillery. In any weather
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    strike from many directions - call aviation.

                    A strike from many directions is a tribute to the enemy air defense system
                    Guns and shells sneezed on air defense / electronic warfare
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    а if you have a lot of money and Tomahawks

                    I’ll tell you more - Russia has only a couple of SLCM carriers. Even without medveputes, their number is unlikely to reach 10% of the US Navy
        2. cosmos111
          cosmos111 10 February 2014 21: 00
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Tomahawk flies on pre-laid reliefometric rakts


          the only modern weapon of the battleship (((((
          but without a dense cover of destroyers ABM (((((
          battleship huge pile of scrap metal ((((
    3. cosmos111
      cosmos111 10 February 2014 20: 42
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The Yankees themselves admit that most of the tasks in the recent local wars could be solved by the fire of naval guns -

      this is yesterday ((((
      the appearance of the Russian Club-K complex in the 2009 year ((((
      The complex looks like a standard 12-meter (40-foot) cargo container used for shipping (((
      thanks to this disguise, notice Club-K until it is activated (((
      this development completely changes the tactics of naval combat (((((
      the time of the gunboats, though large (battleships) irrevocably gone ((((( crying
      1. Santa Fe
        10 February 2014 21: 26
        0
        Quote: cosmos111
        the appearance of the Russian Club-K complex in the 2009 year ((((
        The complex looks like a standard 12-meter (40-foot) cargo container used for shipping (((
        thanks to this disguise, notice Club-K until it is activated (((
        this development completely changes the tactics of naval combat (((((

        Do not deign to answer to two short questions:
        1. How many Club containers have been exported by OJSC "Morinformsistema-Agat" over the past four years?

        2. How much does such a container with 4 rockets cost?
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 10 February 2014 22: 05
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Do not deign to answer two short questions:

          I REALLY FINISH ((((
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          ... How many Club containers have been exported by OJSC "Morinformsistema-Agat" over the past four years?

          1. I would have said how many people were accepted for service in the Russian Navy (((
          There is no exact information, but I think 0.
          but this is a question political and economic , and not technological or tactical ((in the application of such complexes (((((
          will appear in the Middle Kingdom, hundreds will be copied ((((
          2.cost of the complex in 2012 year 500 ml, rub ((((
          now answer my question.
          Estimated cost of a battleship?
          1. Santa Fe
            10 February 2014 22: 26
            -4
            Quote: cosmos111
            There is no exact information, but I think 0.

            The Russian Navy adopts their normal version - "Caliber"

            Over the past 4 years, the Club-K complex (which changes the tactics of the database at sea) has not received ANY ORDER. The idea with a freight container is a meaningless tale.

            The second problem is the cost: one container, it costs like a Mi-8 helicopter !!! For a disposable weapon !! Who will buy it? Terrorists - choose a pack of Chinese RCC Yingji. Fleets of large states - they don’t need such systems at all, they have normal warships
            Quote: cosmos111
            Estimated cost of a battleship?

            The Yankees believe that the construction of Capital Surface Warship (a neo-battleship similar to Iowa) will cost 10 billion.

            But where does the RK Club? Are you really going to drown the battleship with such weapons :)))

            Test launch of "Caliber" from the submarine K-560 "Severodvinsk"
            1. cosmos111
              cosmos111 10 February 2014 23: 35
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Russian Navy adopts their normal version - "Caliber"

              1. all this was done for political reasons under pressure from the United States ((((
              ka at one time they lost in 2005 (BZHRK) 15P961 "Molodets" armed with intercontinental missiles RT-23 UTTH. ((((>>>> this is POLITICS respected only the politics and propaganda of our foreign policy <<<
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The second problem is the cost: one container, it costs like a Mi-8 helicopter !!! 3

              2.well and, what ??? >>> high-tech weapon a priori dogogo, This is not the Mi-8 ((((

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But where does the RK Club? Really going to drown the battleship with such weapons

              3. Why not???((((
              the "Club" family includes several cruise missiles of various ranges and power (((
              the most powerful of them >>> anti-ship 3M-54KE, created on the basis of the "Granat" missile, designed just for strikes against aircraft carrier groups and aircraft carriers (((>>> speed 0,8 M, when approaching the target over 1 km / s, the warhead contains 200 kg of explosive, range - 300 km.
              the main thing is that the whole complex is made in the form of a standard 40-foot sea container, it becomes almost invisible for all types of aerospace and technical reconnaissance (((can be on board the vessel, on the railway platform, on the trailer semitrailer ((((
              MASKING is the main thing ((((
  2. Basarev
    Basarev 12 February 2014 19: 36
    0
    I immediately recall the failed battleships of the Soviet Union type. It was conceived that the deck would protect against 500-kg bombs.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 10 February 2014 22: 15
    +1
    Quote: Vasya
    Name at least one anti-ship missile that can penetrate the armor belt of the LK ????

    They will make more powerful anti-ship missiles. The missile production cycle is orders of magnitude less than the same parameter for a battleship.
  • Santa Fe
    10 February 2014 15: 31
    0
    Quote: Canep
    if there were 100 additional submarines, it is not known how the war would end, the Americans most likely could not supply Britain.


    Germany was built, manned and prepared for sailing during World War II. 1153 submarines: I series - 2, II series - 50, VII series - 703, IX series - 194, X series - 8, XIV series - 10, XVII series - 7, XXI series - 118, XXIII series - 61.

    What do 100 extra boats mean against this background - no comment

    As the picture below shows, the Fritz had an operational voltage coefficient of operational voltage (KOH). The real boat construction began by the 1944 year, but Germany had neither fuel nor time to train crews - most of the boats were in bases
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 February 2014 16: 24
      0
      why by 44th year? battleships when they were laid?

      Imagine for 40 the year not 57, but 157 boats from the Germans!
      1. Santa Fe
        10 February 2014 16: 59
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Imagine for 40 the year not 57, but 157 boats from the Germans!

        Little, too little to change anything. They would have sunk ... even if 3 times as much - 6 million tons of tonnage (20% of the available fleet tonnage in Britain) - but, as 1942y showed, Britain could still withstand such losses

        By the way, there was a better table reflecting KOH krigsmarine
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 10 February 2014 17: 39
          0
          therefore, the Germans had to build battleships, which did not sink 1% of the tonnage, but devoured time and money?
          1. Santa Fe
            10 February 2014 18: 01
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            so the Germans needed to build battleships

            The Germans in their situation, just did not have to

            But the Yankees and the Britons, they are extremely useful
            Quote: Tlauicol
            which and 1% of tonnage did not sink

            Well, not so categorically

            Bismarck recaptured its value by banging Hood and patting the rest

            Tirpitz fettered the fleet of the metropolis and nicely battered nerves: it destroyed the PQ-17 convoy and mocked the Britons, forcing them to throw colossal forces to destroy it

            The same Gneisenau - 24 ship for two with the Sharhorst, sank the Glories aircraft carrier, damaged the Rinaun, and generally spoiled the mood of our allies

            Three days later, they intercepted several tankers, of which Gneisenau sank one (the British 6197-ton Simnia) and three captured (the Norwegian 5684-ton Bianca and 6405-ton Polycarb, the 8046-ton San Casimiro) ) as prizes. Scharnhorst sent 7139 t) and Atelfoom (6554 t) to the bottom of the British Strenge.

            At this point, the raiders frolicked as much as foxes in a chicken coop. Gneisenau sank six transports: Empire Industry (3648 tons), Norwegian Granli (1577 tons), Royal Crown (4364 tons), Maison (4564 tons), Rio Dorado (4507 tons) and the Danish Chilian Reafer (1739 t), and the Scharnhorst - four: Manghai (8290 t), Silverfire (4347 t), Sardinian Prince (3200 t), Demeterton (5200 t) ...
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 10 February 2014 18: 14
              0
              latest battleship against LCR 18th year? Oh well. interesting course.

              I don’t even remember how old the aircraft carrier Glories is, and a dozen transports per battleship - pff! Hitler did not appreciate :))
              little Nusret three armadillos slammed
              1. Santa Fe
                10 February 2014 18: 30
                -1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                newest battleship against LCR 18go year?

                Hood went live in 1920
                Bismarck - at 1940.

                For comparison - take a look at the age of GRKR Moscow, but even now it retains its potential. Only Hood, unlike Moscow, was modernized all the time

                The sizes are similar, the GK caliber is the same, Hood leads in speed
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Glories aircraft carrier I don’t even remember how old

                Lexington's coeval
                Quote: Tlauicol
                little Nusret three armadillos slammed

                Why didn’t he win the whole war?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2014 19: 12
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    If Hitler, in the place of Bismarck and Tirpitz, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, would have built submarines with a total displacement of 150000 tons, it would have turned out 100 additional submarines,

    In this case, the British, instead of the five "King George V" (about 210 thousand tons), would have built destroyers and PLO ships.
  • smart ass
    smart ass 10 February 2014 09: 01
    +3
    I’ll recognize Oleg’s article immediately) thanks for the work. It would be nice to add an economic component. How much is a battleship ?? How expensive is it? How much fuel does it eat ?? Is it true Battleship = Panzer Division ??? Or maybe 2m?
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 15: 46
      0
      Quote: Clever man
      How expensive is it?

      The crew of the 70-year-old "Iowa" - 2800 people.
      Crew AB Ford (2015 year) - 4660 people
      Quote: Clever man
      How much is a battleship?

      The Yankees themselves calculated that a ship like Iowa (Capital Surface Warship = CSW project) would cost 10 billion.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2014 19: 26
      +1
      Quote: Clever man
      Is it true Battleship = Panzer Division ???

      The cost of the battleship Bismarck is 198,8 million Reichsmarks. The cost of the Tiger tank is about 800 thousand Reichsmarks. In total, one battleship is equivalent to 249 Tiger tanks. This is quite enough to equip the tank division with tanks, but the tank division also has cars, armored personnel carriers, guns and so on and so forth.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass 11 February 2014 13: 00
        0
        Thanks for the answer))) and besides, the tigers were used in heavy tank battalions, and not as the main tank) probably if all the rigging of the tank division (in this case, German) comes out ...
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 12 February 2014 20: 31
          0
          Well, yes. Once the Panzerkampfvagenov’s tank division comes out.
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 10 February 2014 09: 30
    0
    The time of the "dinosaurs" is gone with the advent of aviation.

    The original weapon of a battleship! —To have it, be proud of it, and be afraid to bring it into battle, so, God forbid, not lose. Because the construction of such a monster during the war is not an easy task. So the battle of the Jutland battleships simultaneously showed the military strength and economic weakness of such ships
    1. washi
      washi 10 February 2014 15: 07
      0
      Quote: LetterKsi
      The time of the "dinosaurs" is gone with the advent of aviation.

      No one forbids them to equip modern air defense.
      Quote: LetterKsi
      The original weapon of a battleship! - have it, be proud of it, and be afraid to bring it into battle, so, God forbid, not lose

      These are the problems of bosses of all ranks.
      If a weapon is created, then it MUST be used in hostilities.
      But, there is no ship - there is no admiral post.
      The fleet is the most conservative organization in the whole world.
      The saddest thing is that many are still equal to the Angles, forgetting that while the ancestors of the Angles ran through the forests with clubs, ours calmly rode the seas. And the Baltic Sea was called - Varyazhsky, and the Black - Russian.
  • bpvo58
    bpvo58 10 February 2014 09: 33
    +6
    I like these literary passages: "... the meeting with the Bismarck shocked the British Admiralty so much that for the rest of the war the British suffered from battleship phobia and were shaking with the thought:" What if Tirpitz goes out to sea? " where healthy men - admirals are hiding under the tables and shaking with fear: "Mommy, take us back into the womb!"
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 10 February 2014 09: 38
    0
    An interesting, informative article, thanks to the author. Interestingly, the duckling was abandoned for fun?
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 10 February 2014 09: 46
    0
    Majestic and harsh monsters. In aviation, Tu -95 -142 are associated with battleships.
  • bulvas
    bulvas 10 February 2014 09: 54
    +1
    Interesting, thanks!
  • Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 10 February 2014 10: 25
    0
    but what beautiful ships ...
  • AlNick
    AlNick 10 February 2014 10: 34
    0
    Quote: bulvas
    After the battle, the sailors calculated: they had to make 2876 rounds of the main, medium and universal caliber before the Bismarck turned into flaming ruins and completely lost its combat effectiveness (sunk by the fire of the British battleships Rodney and King George V, with the participation of cruisers and Deck Aviation 27.05.41)


    The moral of this fable is
    That two "hares" with a shobla overwhelmed the lion,
    And their lion alone oh how n *****,
    generally drenched.
    drinks
    1. Syrdon
      Syrdon 10 February 2014 11: 01
      0
      Leo (Bismarck) would pile them with luli if it were not for the damaged rudders and the impossibility of maneuver.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2014 11: 12
        +1
        Two lions (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) had already once darted from one old British cruiser, wiping their snot.
        Yes, and Bismarck skidded before the rudders and after. Yes, you can not run away from the "hares" - they even lost Hood, followed, and did not shkheri like Tirpitz
        1. washi
          washi 10 February 2014 15: 15
          -1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Two lions (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) had already once darted from one old British cruiser, wiping their snot.
          Yes, and Bismarck skidded before the rudders and after. Yes, you can not run away from the "hares" - they even lost Hood, followed, and did not shkheri like Tirpitz

          I will even say more. Scharnhorst skidded from the Russian icebreaker "Sedov"
          These are problems not of technology, but of psychology.
          The navy served mainly "zapadentsy" ie. residents to the west of the "laba" (elba). And in the landings there was a share of Aryan (Slavic) blood, therefore, they fought as expected.
      2. avt
        avt 10 February 2014 11: 18
        0
        Quote: Syrdon
        Leo (Bismarck) would pile them with luli if it were not for the damaged rudders and the impossibility of maneuver.

        Do not tell me - from which battleship and with what projectile did the steering wheels damage him that he began to walk in a circle?
        Quote: Ivan Petrovich
        but what beautiful ships ...

        This is yes! in contrast to the "floating garages" - aircraft carriers and submarines, which are generally small pelvis against its background.
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Straight gravestone to battleships

        good To the point.
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 10 February 2014 10: 46
    +2
    Looking at such monsters involuntarily thinks, Yeah, war is not cheap
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 February 2014 11: 01
      0
      Yeah ! Especially if you reduce the debit to credit:

      Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of battleships. Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of submarines.

      Submarines drowned a bunch of aircraft carriers. Submarines drowned a bunch of battleships. Submarines drowned a bunch of submarines.

      And how many battleships drowned battleships? How many aircraft carriers? U-boat? What did they do at all? Did you make any losses?

      I liked the article. Straight gravestone to battleships
      1. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 15: 24
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Yeah ! Especially if you reduce the debit to credit: Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of battleships. Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of submarines. Submarines drowned a bunch of aircraft carriers. Submarines drowned a bunch of battleships. Submarines drowned a bunch of submarines. And how many battleships drowned battleships? How many aircraft carriers? U-boat? What did they do at all? Did you make any losses? I liked the article. Straight gravestone to battleships

        The fleet must be balanced.
        Not only in tactics, but also in strategy.
        Why build coffins if we need to hold onto a peninsula?
        And if you need to replace someone, then yes. It is necessary to turn around, especially if you go far by land.
        That is why the Americans are afraid to support the initiative of GDP across the bridge across the Bering Strait.
        Yes, and Maidan workers were afraid of the bridge across the Kerch Strait
      2. Santa Fe
        10 February 2014 15: 56
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of battleships. Aircraft carriers drowned a bunch of submarines.

        How many aircraft carriers were built? And how many battleships?
        Quote: Tlauicol
        And how many battleships drowned battleships?

        Seven

        + damage Provence and Dunkirk, forcing them to surrender
        + sinking of two heavy "Zar"
        Quote: Tlauicol
        How many aircraft carriers?

        Two
        Quote: Tlauicol
        What did they do at all?

        The first half of the war - heavy ships of the enemy were drowned
        The second half of the war - provided fire support and air defense
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 10 February 2014 16: 45
          +1
          I counted only five, six cruiser Hood (test trophy). Jean bar bombs drowned
          1. Santa Fe
            10 February 2014 17: 15
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            six cruiser hood (offset trophy)

            cruiser)))

            It was a battleship the size of a tirpitz. Speed ​​30+ knots in exchange for less armor. Differences in the classification "battleship / battle cruiser" - after WWII it does not matter much, then they generally merged into one class (Tirpitz, fast battleship Iowa)
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 10 February 2014 17: 50
              +1
              Hood - Offset. Although, you can even call it a super linkor, but the deck will not become thicker, and it will not become younger. But then, how can Brittany be called by the 40th year: Great Marat or the super ark?
              1. Santa Fe
                10 February 2014 18: 07
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                But then, how can Brittany be called the Great Marat or the super-ark by 40?

                Better compare them with the battleships of Pearl Harbor))
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 10 February 2014 19: 07
                  +2
                  Brittany and Marat next to Arizona and Oklahoma are just whipping boys. All naphthalene. Hood is also naphthalene. With age, only violins and paintings become more expensive. Bismarck Hood is a queen exchange for an elephant
                  1. Pilat2009
                    Pilat2009 10 February 2014 19: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Bismarck Hood is a queen exchange for an elephant

                    He was obliged to finish the Prince
                  2. Santa Fe
                    10 February 2014 21: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Bismarck Hood is a queen exchange for an elephant

                    Rather on a rook with positional advantage
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 10 February 2014 11: 13
    +4
    Battleships are the embodiment of beauty and strength, they cannot help but bewitch you with their views ... In the world, thousands of people are in love with them collecting information, photos, tracking their fate from bookmarks to coordinates in the sea where he rested ... Oleg Kaptsov is clearly one of them . And I understand his dislike of aircraft carriers. Well, how can a pelvis with a flat deck be better than dreadnought? Yes, put next to an escort aircraft carrier such as Bogue, which was made on the basis of civil transport and the battleship Littorio? How can you compare a converted bulk carrier with a ship that implemented the most advanced developments in the field of shipbuilding, engine building, artillery, fire control, etc. Yes, I had to spend so much effort on one mine defense ... And I understand the admirals who loved their battleships no less, to lose such a handsome man from a vulgar torpedo ... let them stand for now, but we'll see ...
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 16: 00
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, how can a pelvis with a flat deck be better than dreadnought?

      Watching what time and for what tasks
      Quote: Nayhas
      Yes, put next to an escort aircraft carrier such as Bogue, which was made on the basis of civil transport and the battleship Littorio?

      If Bismarck is ahead, it’s better to transfer to Littorio
      If you need to shoot at the reinforced concrete forts of Cherbourg, only Littorio will help
      Quote: Nayhas
      lose such a handsome from a vulgar torpedo

      Not a single battleship built by 30's - 40's could not be sunk by one torpedo.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2014 16: 47
        -1
        "could not be sunk by one torpedo."
        This is a limitation of which contract? START 2? Potsdam? Montreux? Tilsit?
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2014 17: 17
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          This is a limitation of which contract?

          If there is a desire - you can get into it 2-3 and get more than once.
          Unless, of course, enough aircraft and speed qualities of submarines
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 11 February 2014 05: 37
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Not a single battleship built in the 30s and 40s could be sunk by a single torpedo.

        Oleg, I’m figuratively ...
  • Hort
    Hort 10 February 2014 11: 30
    +2
    I wonder how the battle at Midway would have developed if the Japanese had a Yamato with Musasei there ...
    As for the Bismarck, here, in my opinion, the Germans have chosen the wrong tactics of using it. A surface raider is a thing of questionable effectiveness and a potential victim, which in general happened.
  • polkownik1
    polkownik1 10 February 2014 11: 34
    +5
    But you can dream something ?! :)) A colossal armored fortress with a nuclear power plant near the enemy shores, an insurmountable modern air defense system, Iskander strike weapons, adjustable artillery shells under 400 mm., Complete independence of actions from the weather, unlike aircraft carriers, submarines are guarded. .. There's something about it !
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 10 February 2014 11: 50
      +2
      Quote: polkownik1
      But is it possible to dream ?!

      Add another speed of 60 knots, reserving 1000mm boards, stealth technologies and the ability to transfer marines with all weapons to it, this will be a wunderwafer !!! fellow
      1. avt
        avt 10 February 2014 12: 18
        +2
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Add another speed of 60 knots, reserving 1000mm boards, stealth technologies and the ability to transfer marines with all weapons to it, this will be a wunderwafer !!!

        And if, as in the Japanese cartoon about Yamato, he will go into outer space! laughing General dream wassat
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 10 February 2014 13: 05
          +3
          Quote: avt
          And if, as in the Japanese cartoon about Yamato, he will go out into space!

          So it’s not covered me yet. smile
        2. polkownik1
          polkownik1 10 February 2014 14: 01
          +1
          It's funny :))))) Only this is no longer a dream. Offer yours and I'll easily cut it by your own method :)). By the way, a counter question: Do you know the invulnerable maritime assets today? Share.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 10 February 2014 14: 32
            0
            Quote: polkownik1
            Offer yours and I'll easily cut it by your own method "under a nut"

            I dream of world peace. wink
            Quote: polkownik1
            By the way, the counter-question: Do you know the naval means that are invulnerable today? Share it.

            Of course, I don’t know, they are not, but I know cheaper and more effective than the dreadnought that you proposed, stuffed with all sorts of things.
            1. polkownik1
              polkownik1 10 February 2014 20: 04
              0
              I didn't suggest; tried to develop a topic for discussion, nothing more. And of course, at the modern level, and not copying the "dreadnoughts" of the last century. No way, no, experts in naval strategy know better. But it looks like the arms race is turning in a different direction. More and more attention is paid not to nuclear weapons, but to precision weapons. Its accuracy is already measured in meters and decimeters. This means that designers will again start thinking about the security and sustainability of potential targets. It is in this case that size, as they say, matters ...
        3. Assistant
          Assistant 11 February 2014 01: 51
          0
          And if, as in the Japanese cartoon about Yamato, he will go into outer space! Laughing Generally a dream wassat


          And also the aerospace unit is a unit of fighter-Veritechs with support vehicles and in the landing hold - a warp portal from the mainland!
      2. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 15: 28
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Quote: polkownik1
        But is it possible to dream ?!

        Add another speed of 60 knots, reserving 1000mm boards, stealth technologies and the ability to transfer marines with all weapons to it, this will be a wunderwafer !!! fellow

        And you read about promising amer ships in the 80s. There is also not such a thing to see.
        They broke the USSR and relaxed.
    2. ilea123456
      ilea123456 10 February 2014 11: 56
      +2
      Quote: polkownik1
      But you can dream something ?! :)) A colossal armored fortress with a nuclear power plant near the enemy shores, an insurmountable modern air defense system, Iskander strike weapons, adjustable artillery shells under 400 mm., Complete independence of actions from the weather, unlike aircraft carriers, submarines are guarded. .. There's something about it !


      add instead of guns high power railguns, S-400, auxiliary artificial intelligence and there will be a real machine of total destruction!
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 10 February 2014 12: 18
        +2
        And all this in low Earth orbit! good
  • bbss
    bbss 10 February 2014 12: 33
    +1
    Old samurai Yamamoto looks at the author with a smile from heaven ...
    1. washi
      washi 10 February 2014 15: 32
      +2
      Quote: bbss
      Old samurai Yamamoto looks at the author with a smile from heaven ...

      the old samurai Yamamoto looks and despises his descendants who do not know the history of their country.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 10 February 2014 12: 59
    0
    Ships of their era ... basically, their combat capabilities were reduced only to the capabilities of artillery support for the ground forces - the latter is clearly confirmed by examples of the use of ships both during the First World War and during the Great Patriotic War. Nevertheless, they made a great contribution to the further development of the fleets of the world ...
  • Prometey
    Prometey 10 February 2014 13: 09
    -2
    In his memoirs, Zhukov wrote that when, in the USSR, the fleet construction program was discussed, we also had our supporters and opponents of the construction of battleships. Moreover, it was not the naval military who objected to their construction, and precisely for economic reasons. In the end, all the same, it was justified that the USSR did not get involved in this hopeless Linkor race. Yes, beautiful ships, a bunch of technological shipbuilding, but so practically did not bring any benefit to the sea.
    As I read in one of the articles, the appearance of battleships was akin to the appearance of tyrannosaurs at the end of the reign of the dinosaurs on Earth, for which there were no suitable opponents or prey.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 10 February 2014 13: 42
      0
      Quote: Prometey
      In the end, all the same, it was justified that the USSR did not get involved in this hopeless Linkor race.

      So before the war, four Soviet Union just laid? For a laugh?
      1. washi
        washi 10 February 2014 15: 37
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        So before the war, four Soviet Union just laid? For a laugh?

        They laid 4 in vain. It was necessary 1. To test the production. Assess the capabilities of the ships.
        Stalin was too gullible, or did not have dictatorial power.
        More likely 2nd.
        1. avt
          avt 10 February 2014 21: 33
          0
          Quote: Vasya
          Stalin was too gullible, or did not have dictatorial power.

          He had a weakness. Especially for battle cruisers. It is a well-known fact - to Kuznetsov's remark about the high cost of lin.kreser with 305mm main caliber and a proposal to build ships with a simpler 229mm caliber, sternly, filling a pipe, answered - "We will collect money for a pretty penny and build it!"
  • Taoist
    Taoist 10 February 2014 13: 29
    +5
    Reading the title, I was already sure who signed the article ... somehow it’s very predictable ... bully
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 10 February 2014 13: 43
    0
    Quote: Kovrovsky
    An interesting, informative article, thanks to the author. Interestingly, the duckling was abandoned for fun?

    Probably, the minus who slammed me is still washing himself with a duck, but I insulted his feelings ...
  • Taoist
    Taoist 10 February 2014 13: 44
    +5
    "You can shout here even until the night and I spent the whole film long ago ..." (C)

    By the way, "super-survivability of battleships" is also partly a myth. The only question is in the presentation of the material. The same Bismarck (according to the recollections of his senior artilleryman) first lost his radar from the concussion of volleys of his own artillery and then almost completely lost its combat effectiveness when the first volleys of the British destroyed his fire control post. As a result, in his last battle, Bismarck did not even get anywhere and became, in fact, a beaten target with impunity. The essence of any warship is the weapon it carries and the ability to use it. At the end of their glory, battleships became insanely vulnerable ships. depended on the fact that, in principle, it is impossible to book. Directors, radar antennas, and other artillery fire control systems. So I understand nostalgia, but ... I don't share it.
    1. washi
      washi 10 February 2014 15: 43
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, "super-survivability of battleships" is also partly a myth. The only question is in the presentation of the material. The same Bismarck (according to the recollections of his senior artilleryman) first lost his radar from the concussion of volleys of his own artillery and then almost completely lost its combat effectiveness when the first volleys of the British destroyed his fire control post. As a result, in his last battle, Bismarck did not even get anywhere and became, in fact, a beaten target with impunity. The essence of any warship is the weapon it carries and the ability to use it. At the end of their glory, battleships became insanely vulnerable ships. depended on the fact that, in principle, it is impossible to book. Directors, radar antennas, and other artillery fire control systems. So I understand nostalgia, but ... I don't share it.

      Of course in those days, one radar per ship.
      Now you can put an AFAR on each tower (it's like with the range finders at Tsushima) + modern air defense and anti-aircraft defense.
      Battleships are tanks, but on the water.
      If tanks make the next generation, then can battleships be?
    2. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 16: 11
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      first lost the radar from shaking volleys of its own artillery

      It all depends on the radar
      Iowa and South Dakotas haven’t seen this.
      Quote: Taoist
      when, at the first volleys, the British smashed his fire control post

      On modern ships, such things duplicate

      The same Yamato, to which the radar post was defeated with the first bomb - the superlink was built according to the norms of the 30's, the appearance of the radar came as a surprise, I had to somehow integrate it into the structure (on the upper deck, without armor). That's why the result
      Quote: Taoist
      As a result, Bismarck didn’t even get anywhere in his last battle.

      The roll and damage of rangefinding posts (2876 shots is not a joke) made ballistic calculations difficult + problems with keeping on course
      Quote: Taoist
      became virtually an unpunished target

      The hunt involved 42 ships and 6 submarines of His Majesty's fleet + carrier-based and base aviation. 2876 rounds, 8 fired torpedoes

      On the ship, which he could not maneuver
      Quote: Taoist
      in principle it is impossible to book. Directors Radar Antennas

      But they can be duplicated and dispersed.

      Ticonderoga radars, front superstructure


      Radar Ticonderoges rear superstructure
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2014 18: 07
        0
        (C) "The roll and damage to the rangefinder posts (2876 shots are not a joke) made ballistic calculations difficult" - don't confuse the number of shots and hits. Accuracy problems began with the first 8-inch round.

        total hits of about 400 (of all calibers, and most of them point blank, when he already could not answer, that is, he had long lost combat effectiveness)

        Remember the comm. Katani :)) Or famous shots: hundreds of American anti-aircraft guns hit the kamikaze, which falls WITH A TORNED WING, falling apart, is this what speaks of its survivability?
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2014 18: 21
          +3
          Quote: Tlauicol
          total hits about 400

          I wonder what modern Burke will feel after 10 of such hits (on 3 of each caliber)?
          Quote: Tlauicol
          and do not confuse the number of shots and hits.

          Have I talked about 2876 hits somewhere?

          About Katani and survivability - the magnificent work of the PTZ and airtight bulkheads, when Musashi withstands 6 torpedoes without seriously reducing the course (loss of power / combat efficiency). Like 100 hits in Orel or 400 in Bismarck, after which the ships continue to move on their own - this is a great result.

          By the way, do you know the loss of the Eagle crew in the Tsushima battle?


          About radar and rangefinders - duplication and dispersal. Nowadays, this is not dangerous at all - you can shoot along the shore without a radar
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2014 19: 13
            0
            45-50 people killed? 800 people surrendered? also the result :))
            1. Santa Fe
              10 February 2014 19: 34
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              45-50 man killed?

              25
      2. Assistant
        Assistant 11 February 2014 02: 19
        0
        But they can be duplicated and dispersed.


        And why, then, the Americans on the Arleigh Burke class destroyers on the contrary concentrated radar posts on the superstructure and mast coming out of this superstructure?
        1. Santa Fe
          11 February 2014 03: 17
          0
          Quote: Assistant
          And why, then, the Americans on the Arleigh Burke class destroyers on the contrary concentrated radar posts on the superstructure and mast coming out of this superstructure?

          Nothing like that

          Headlamps - on different sides of the superstructure, in increments of 90 degrees. With one hit, you can disrupt no more than one. Fire control radar - at a distance of 40 meters, in the aft part of the superstructure, behind the exhaust pipes

          Moreover, for Burke, security is not so relevant - it can sink from the RCC stuck in the case, as did his comrade Sheffield
      3. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 11 February 2014 03: 56
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Radar Ticonderoges rear superstructure

        Each type of radar has its own specification, setting. An artillery radar will not replace a navigation radar; a backlight radar will not replace a radar of airspace.
        Not the most advanced electronic warfare means "jam" any radars, give false illumination.
        A serious conflict at sea will not do without the use of nuclear weapons, and this is EMP, and goodbye electronics. Who will give target designations for firing super-guns with super-shells?
        1. Santa Fe
          11 February 2014 08: 24
          0
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          Each type of radar has its own specification, setting

          Air Surveillance Radar - 2 (AN / SPY-1 with 4 independent HEADLIGHTS + backup AN / SPS-49) Output them all in one hit impossible

          Fire Control Radar - 4 pieces, dispersed
          Navigation radar - 1, in front of the superstructure
          Surveillance Radar / SLA Artillery -AN / SPQ-9, on the front mast

          Optional:
          Thermal imagers and optoelectronic infrared systems like VAMPIR-NG
          Self-defense anti-aircraft systems with independent SLAs and radars
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 11 February 2014 09: 06
            0
            Again it went and went: one light anti-ship missile, one torpedo, one ordinary air bomb ... Oleg, what are you fighting by the rules? What is the name of the game?
            1. Santa Fe
              11 February 2014 21: 57
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              What is the game called?

              Eldorado Canyon
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 12 February 2014 05: 26
                0
                Anti-radar missiles, carrier-based attack aircraft, fighter-bombers, two aircraft carriers. The game lasted 11 minutes. The battleships apparently did not qualify :)
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Santa Fe
                  12 February 2014 15: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  The battleships apparently did not qualify

                  Once there are two aircraft carriers built, the F-111 from the Lakenhit base in the UK, 45 aircraft and 150 tons of ammunition (300 bombs, 48 missiles) - they’re flag ж arms

                  Bottom line - According to official American data, the losses during the attack were one plane (F-111, presumably shot down during the attack, a crew of two people died) and one plane was damaged, but returned to the air base

                  Gaddafi announced that about 40 Libyan civilians died as a result of the raid, including Gaddafi’s adopted daughter, 15-month-old Hannah. In 2011, it turned out that the story of the death of Hannah Gaddafi spread by Libyan propaganda is a lie. After the forces of the National Transitional Council seized the residence of Gaddafi Bab el-Aziziya, documents were found proving that Khan Gaddafi was alive and well.

                  Some of the bombs did not explode after being dropped from an extremely low altitude. However, all targeted objects were hit. 17 Libyan Air Force fighters and 10 Il-76 military transport aircraft were destroyed and damaged on the ground


                  A table from Wiki who bombed. By the way, how much does one anti-radar HARM cost?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 12 February 2014 16: 26
                    0
                    excellent performance! not like + - 10km in New Jersey in Lebanon (qualifying round)
                    1. Santa Fe
                      12 February 2014 18: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      + - 10km in Lebanon near New Jersey (qualifying round)

                      This is when the American "Flying Fortresses" bombed Switzerland)))

                      Or chemical bombing. Factory in Lane:

                      The next raid took place on July 20. 148 aircraft took part in the raid. Shot down over the factory - 2. Reset - 361 ton, 87 hit the target.
                      The damage amounted to 14 million marks. 9 people were killed, with 4 of them outside the factory. Wounded 25.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 12 February 2014 19: 15
                        0
                        86 year? maybe 85?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        12 February 2014 19: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        86 year? maybe 85?

                        You cited Vietnam-65 as an example
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 13 February 2014 05: 43
                        0
                        then 65th :)) I gave an example 82y + - 10 km
                      4. Santa Fe
                        13 February 2014 08: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        I gave an example of 82 + - 10 km

                        But there were no + -10 km

                        Aviation did not pass qualifying round in Lebanon - after two attempts
    3. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 11 February 2014 12: 41
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Air Surveillance Radar - 2 (AN / SPY-1 with 4 independent HEADLIGHTS + backup AN / SPS-49) It is impossible to remove them all with one hit

      Quote: stalkerwalker
      Not the most advanced electronic warfare means "jam" any radars, give false illumination.
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 01: 39
    0
    Where does this fairy tale about EMP come from? I understand that there is radiation and, yes, it spoils the equipment. But how many charges do you need to detonate to make the concept "not without nuclear weapons => all electronics burned"? Or does a nuclear explosion now have EMP covering everything within a radius of 100 km? To achieve the effect, you will have to detonate the charge quite close to the ship. Then immediately, destroy with a hit. What for is your EMP? The main damaging factor of a nuclear explosion in the earth's atmosphere is a shock wave. This also applies to ships and submarines. No

    goodbye electronics


    because of the limited use of nuclear weapons will not happen. And if there is unlimited, then there will be "goodbye electronics, crew, and everything else, along with the ship" ...
  • dv-v
    dv-v 10 February 2014 13: 52
    -2
    The era of brontosaurs did not end even in WWI, but with the launching of the "dreadnought" - no Jutland battle can be compared with the Russo-Japanese war, all battleships were stationed at the bases and occasionally fired - submarines with mines posed a full-fledged threat. and in the WWII aviation was added to them.
    By the way, with MBR and KR aircraft carriers are rather outdated.
  • La-5
    La-5 10 February 2014 14: 22
    0
    Dive bombers put an end to battleships.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 February 2014 14: 50
    0
    Well, let's say that not 2, but 10 battleships of the Yamato class were built, and the Japanese aircraft carrier fleet is not drowned at Midway, it does not matter if the Yapi won that battle, or simply the aircraft carriers themselves would have been many times larger. And there were 3 times more other vessels. What then? Do you think Yamato would sit on the bases, or control the ocean? And could then fast battleships like "Iowa", along with a bunch of old troughs, including those raised in Pearl Harbor, calmly hammer bunkers on the islands, or would they be busy fighting at sea? It makes no sense to compare 2 "Yamato" and 6 troughs built at the best of the 20s with the American battleship armada, and then complain that battleships almost never fought at sea.
    1. Blind
      Blind 11 February 2014 10: 40
      0
      It was not Iowa who won the war in the Pacific Ocean, there could have been no one at all, but 100 aircraft carriers and 850 destroyers built by the States in 4 years
    2. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 01: 51
      0
      Then the Japanese would have captured Midway, then the Hawaiian Islands, most likely after that America's chances of a successful outcome would depend on how quickly the Manhattan project is completed. Actually yapam and without ten "Yamato" not so much was not enough.

      Critical problems in the lower speed of ship construction, replenishment of flight crew losses, lack of fuel, ineffective anti-aircraft defense of ships, and the like, all this allowed the Americans to gradually completely seize the initiative. But this did not happen instantly. And it became possible because of the Japanese disaster at Midway. Prior to this battle, the Allies suffered one defeat after another. This is a kind of Japanese "Stalingrad", a turning point. And they missed it out of stupidity, and because of bad luck, of course. As soon as America lost the base of the Pacific Fleet and was thrown back, in fact, to California, a completely different song would have gone. Neither you will be able to deprive Japan of oil (Brunei is under control with the Philippines, all the way), nor a major victory at sea to achieve (why would? as at Midway) so that the Japanese had to rebuild the fleet and train pilots. History is such a thing, if only, if only)
      1. Santa Fe
        13 February 2014 03: 18
        0
        Quote: SkiF_RnD
        Then the Japanese would take Midway, then Hawaii

        Midway - yes, but Hawaii would never have taken (look at the number of coastal fortifications and batteries - the Americans stormed such positions by a dozen aircraft carriers and LCs, but where did the Japanese get such forces?)

        And by 1943, the Essexes, Tambor submarines and eight hundred new destroyers would arrive in time - and everything would end as before
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 February 2014 04: 20
          +1
          Something nespitsa. I’m looking for where to buy a broken 6 inch reader, with a whole screen)))) At least the new one is already coming EvroMedia E-Tutorial HD Black Gold


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          take a look at the number of coastal fortifications and batteries

          For a long time I rushed about the idea of ​​landing in Hawaii after the success of the strikes, in cash. I have not read this plate yet.

          And now, here's a quick reference, the batteries of Oahu on December 7 1941 of the year:



          Stationary:

          4 - 406 mm

          2 - 356 mm

          4 - 305 mm

          20 - 305 mm mortar

          8 - 203 mm

          8 - 152 mm

          6 - 120 mm



          Mobile:

          12 - 240 mm

          48 - 155 mm


  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 February 2014 15: 07
    0
    Concerning "Bismarck". Famous photo. It is alleged that the towers were torn down during the coup and they are lying somewhere nearby. Do you even have a photo of them?
    1. ICT
      ICT 10 February 2014 20: 59
      0
      photo not found there is video

      James Cameron Expedition: Bismarck

      look from 40 minutes there is an approximate plan for the fall, about towers from 56 minutes

      http://online-docfilm.com/discovery/dsecrets/455-ekspediciya-dzheymsa-kamerona-b
      ismark.html
  • washi
    washi 10 February 2014 15: 47
    0
    Quote: La-5
    Dive bombers put an end to battleships.

    And La-5 put an end not only to the Yu-87, but also to the Me-109-E, f.
    And on whom, or on what, do you want to put an end to you
  • Black
    Black 10 February 2014 16: 01
    0
    Probably, a more beautiful weapon was not created before the dreadnought, and will not be in the future (unless, of course, the sling stone is taken into account).
  • nnz226
    nnz226 10 February 2014 16: 09
    0
    In 1944, when landing the Allies in Normandy, there was such an incident: the coordinates of the target were transferred from the coast to the English battleship - after the volley of the battleship (with the main caliber !!!) the coordinates moved 500 meters into the land, and several times in a row. When the battleship commander took an interest in such non-standard behavior of the target, the answer led him into a stupor for ten minutes! It turns out that the battleship fired the main caliber at the German horseman, jumping deep into his troops, apparently with a report !!! I think that horse and rider showed such fast results that current Olympic champions still have to grow and grow !!!
  • tetrarx
    tetrarx 10 February 2014 16: 25
    0
    A battleship is like a mother who watches her children for a walk. And any person, when he can realize that he will lose everything at one time, will not take risky steps.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 10 February 2014 16: 32
    0
    Weapons with low range and accuracy. Therefore, it turned out that even primitive aircraft with a greater range and probability of being hit played a major role in the war. Well, maybe apart from shelling the coast over areas, here artillery is cheaper and faster and outside the air defense zone. At the present stage of development of precision weapons, battleships are only suitable for war with the Papuans who have no means of counteraction. In any other case, what can contrast a battleship with a firing range of 40 km against a missile with a range of 300 km and nuclear warheads?
    About the war. The Americans write that they managed to reveal the Japanese ciphers and knew where to send their battleships roughly, and now imagine that they do not know. They sent it to one place, but it turned out it was necessary to another, and it was already too late, I went there for two days and when they arrived it would all be over. Airplanes from the nearest base fly the right distance in a couple of hours and now they bomb anyone. Well, imagine what they would say at the headquarters regarding useless coffins, the sense of which is zero, they only eat fuel.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 16: 49
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Weapons with low range and accuracy

      You will tell the Hood crew.

      And the commander of the Syrian occupation forces in Lebanon, whose bunker banged the USS New Jersey in 1983
      Quote: chunga-changa
      which can contrast a battleship with a range of fire, say 40km against a missile with a range of 300km and BCh.

      I wondered how you didn’t think of a comparison of a 406 mm projectile with the Sineva SLBM

      By the way, sea-based KR can be successfully placed on board a battleship. All the 21 century in the yard

      Four-charged armored launcher Mk.143 ABL - all on board New Jersey were 8 such installations (32 Tomahawk)
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 10 February 2014 17: 06
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You will tell the Hood crew.

        Hood had exactly the same non-long-range weapon, the "hitting accuracy" of which is calculated statistically, or simply quite accidentally, which Hood demonstrated with his ridiculous death. Even a primitive missile boat would have rolled Bismarck from a safe distance for itself, or even a squadron of primitive torpedo bombers, as demonstrated by the death of Bismarck. Compare the cost of building and operating the battleship Hood, and the result of its use, and the cost of aircraft and the results of their use. And the Lebanese story is just about the Papuans who have nothing to answer. Tomahawks were also installed not from a good life, they will be the main weapon on the ground if you have to face an adequate enemy. And against the missile cruiser, the battleship quietly smokes on the sidelines with its 406 mm. In general, I do not really understand your point of view. What are you trying to clarify, or do you just enjoy arguing?
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2014 17: 21
          0
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Even a primitive rocket boat would roll out Bismarck from a safe distance

          What distance is it from?
          And what missiles)))
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Compare the cost of construction and operation of the Hood battleship, and the result of its application, and the cost of aircraft and the results of their application.

          For useless burning of funds Nimits have no equal
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 10 February 2014 20: 11
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What distance is it from?

            From a boat 183r, for example P-15 of the 60s, approx. 30km, P-15m 70s 40-80km, the probability of defeat 0,8 warhead-500kg, could be nuclear.
            With the P-100 cruiser the same with a range of 500km.
            Modern 120-500km.
            About Nimitz. In peacetime, any part of the army and navy eats unmeasured means. But in a war, cost / benefit efficiency can be calculated quite accurately. But I did not catch your thought.
            1. Santa Fe
              10 February 2014 21: 28
              0
              Quote: chunga-changa
              From a boat 183p eg P-15 60's approx. 30km, R-15m 70's 40-80km

              Mutual Detection Range
              1. chunga-changa
                chunga-changa 11 February 2014 00: 05
                0
                Why are you doing this? Eighty years have been using radar.
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 February 2014 03: 19
                  0
                  Quote: chunga-changa
                  Eighty years have been using radar.

                  Okay, let's go from the other side

                  How far can the radar * mounted on the 10 meter mast of the boat see? What is the limited range of its detection?

                  * Radar is conventional, centimeter. No overseas SPRN stations and other exotic
              2. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 11 February 2014 04: 15
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Mutual Detection Range

                This is the calculation of the line of sight, adjusted for the height of the object (in ideal conditions!) From the navigation textbook laughing
                I’ll tell you that in normal weather, visibility at sea is 4-7 miles. Very rarely 10-12.
                The detection range of large ships using a well-tuned radar is no more than 15-20 miles. The smaller the target, the shorter the detection range.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 17: 07
    +1
    The article is a fat minus. For the fact that he did not find a single line about the hostilities of our battleships during the Great Patriotic War. Nevertheless, they rendered enormous assistance to the ground forces in the defense of Sevastopol and Leningrad. Eternal glory to our hero sailors!
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 17: 31
      +1
      Quote: okroshka79
      For the fact that he did not find a single line about the hostilities of our battleships during the Great Patriotic War

      But we did not have battleships.

      The king’s Marat (the weakest battleship in the world even at the time of construction, which was only nominally considered a battleship) was sunk in 1941, later its core was used as a floating battery

      Or the mediocre use of "Sevastopol" at the World Cup - he could not even provide fire support to those fighting in Sevastopl. 6 campaigns during the whole war in the Black Sea puddle - where from Poti to Crimea one day's journey
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 17: 20
    +3
    Dear Oleg Kaptsov! The ship has no front and rear superstructures! If you are positioning yourself as a major expert on the navy, then apply the appropriate terminology. Those who did not serve in the fleet will want to, they will sort it out anyway, and at least they will not warp the sailors.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 17: 47
    +1
    You, such a gifted, would be born a hundred years earlier and fight not on the Internet, but in reality, I think that you would completely forget about the word "mediocre". And for the "stub" of Marat, who then continued to fight as well as the opportunity allowed, I think, the sailors from this ship will give you a face, for sure ... Shame and shame on you!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2014 19: 47
      +2
      Quote: okroshka79
      You, such a gifted, would be born a hundred years earlier and fight not on the Internet, but in reality, I think that you would completely forget about the word "mediocre"

      You, so gifted, would tell the soldiers of the remnants of the Primorsky army, whom the Germans pressed on Chersonesos about the fact that ours had a "heroic Black Sea battleship" defended in ports when the fleet abandoned the defenders of Sevastopol to the mercy of fate. I'm only afraid that you wouldn't get off with a twisted face
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 11 February 2014 04: 21
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I’m only afraid that you won’t get off with a warped face.

        Gnyaral Petrov would have confirmed, but gone into another world ...
  • klim44
    klim44 10 February 2014 18: 12
    +2
    before the Bismarck turned into flaming ruins and completely lost its combat readiness. Seeing his condition, the British cruisers approached and fired a torpedo volley. From this moment, the German battleship was no longer a tenant. The crew opened the kingstones, and the wounded Bismarck sank, without releasing the flag in the face of the enemy.

    “Whistles, and rattles, and rumbles around. The thunder of cannons, the hiss of shells ... "

    If they said so on the channel "Rain" now on this site all the bricks would be put in their pants! Author, are you aware that our country fought against these heroic sailors of the Kriegsmarine. And let them ask them for the title of heroes of the Russian Federation, because they fought with the British in this case, the eternal "enemies" of Russia.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 19: 37
    +3
    Well, I will do the work for you, dear Oleg Kaptsov. Dear forum users should know about our battleships that participated in the great Patriotic war:
    Battleship "Marat": The battleship took part in the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939, providing assistance to the ground forces with its artillery.
    The Great Patriotic War began for Marat at 4 o'clock on June 22, 1941 - unidentified aircraft approached Kronstadt from the sea. Already on the second day of World War II, the ship shot down 2 enemy aircraft, the first to open a combat account in the Baltic.
    On September 16, four heavy artillery batteries and 27 dive bombers simultaneously hit the Marat. The battleship received several holes, but, in turn, managed to destroy three enemy aircraft. On the night of September 17, "Marat" went for repairs.
    On the morning of September 23, more than seventy fascist bombers simultaneously attacked Kronstadt. One of their main goals was Marat. Two 500-kg or 1000-kg bombs hit almost simultaneously at the bow of the ship, which caused the detonation of the ammunition cellars of the 1st tower. The explosion almost completely interrupted the battleship’s hull in the region of 45-57 sp., Destroyed and dropped from the ship the 1st tower, the foremast with the bow superstructure and the first pipe, the bottom structures were broken and the nose tip fell to the ground. The explosion killed 326 people, including the commander, commissioner and a number of officers. By the morning of September 24, the ship received about 10 tons of water, most of its premises below the middle deck were flooded, and it sat on the ground; about 000 meters of water remained above the water.
    Already on October 31, after a short repair (work on partial restoration of the ship’s combat readiness was carried out under enemy artillery fire), Marat again resisted the invaders. By the end of the year, 6 aircraft were damaged and 8 aircraft were damaged, 18 batteries were crushed and 87 batteries were crushed and up to 18 thousand enemy personnel were destroyed.
    The enemy tried to suppress the artillery of the battleship. On December 28, one of the shells nearly caused the secondary death of the Marat. Piercing almost the entire body vertically, the shell went through the charging and shell cellar of the 3rd tower and got stuck, without breaking, in the hold.
    The Germans made the next attempt to destroy Marat with heavy artillery on October 25, 1942, firing 55 mm shells at it. All three hits fell on the upper deck, covered with granite slabs, and therefore did not cause harm.
    November 3, 1942 on the ship went into operation 2nd tower. The last time the ship opened fire on January 17, 1944.
    On May 31, 1943 the battleship was returned to its former name “Petropavlovsk”, throughout the blockade, the battleship defended Leningrad.
    As a result of numerous shelling and bombing, the battleship received significant damage, so it was not restored after the war. On November 28, 1950, it was reorganized into a non-self-propelled training battleship and renamed the Volkhov, and in September 1953 it was removed from the lists and dismantled for metal.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 11 February 2014 04: 42
      +2
      Quote: okroshka79
      Battleship "Marat": The battleship took part in the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939, providing assistance to the ground forces with its artillery.

      ... like a floating battery, but it was still "on the move". But the shelling campaign on Russare Island of the Hanko Peninsula almost resulted in serious damage.
      And finally. The actions of the fleet commanders of Tributs and Oktyabrsky can and should be described as mediocre. But he did not forget to send the submarines on time to the Baltic Sea, where a network from Paldiski to Hanko had already been installed, for which he received the nickname "killer" from the sailors.
      The second prick, so clung to his tukhes that he only looked into the mouth of Khrushchev, Mehlis. And as a result, he turned the Black Sea Fleet into an office for the transportation of troops and supplies. And the naval aviation was engaged in stupid reconnaissance of the mythical German landing force. As a result, the Germans floated armored boats along the Danube, and after the seizure of Sevastopol, this "fleet" threatened the entire Black Sea Fleet.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 19: 40
    +3
    The battleship "October Revolution: LK" October Revolution "was transferred from Tallinn to Kronstadt, and at the end of September 1941 - to Leningrad, which was defended from invaders.
    On September 11, 1941, on the 125th shot, the middle gun of the bow tower was torn apart.
    September 21, 1941 was hit by three bombs in the bow, in the region of 14-29 frames. Bombs penetrated the middle deck and caused great damage, but did not damage the vital premises of the ship.
    September 27, 1941 was hit by a five-hundred-kilogram bomb. She broke through the upper and middle decks and exploded on the barbette of the second tower of the Civil Code, the barbet was destroyed, and the tower jammed.
    In 1944, the battleship supported the ground forces during the Krasnoselsko-Ropshinsky and Vyborg offensive operations.
    For exemplary performance of the combat missions of the command and the courage and bravery shown by the personnel on July 22, 1944, the battleship was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
    In total, during the years of the war, the battleship “October Revolution” conducted 126 firing of the main caliber, firing 1442 shells. Anti-aircraft gunners of the battleship repelled 24 enemy air raids, in which 597 aircraft participated, shooting down 13 and knocking out three of them. Six bombs fell out of the ship (out of 465 dropped on it), as well as 19 artillery shells.
    July 24, 1954 the ship was reclassified into a training battleship, and two years later expelled from the fleet.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 19: 42
    +2
    The battleship Sevastopol (Paris Commune): During the Great Patriotic War, participated in the defense of Sevastopol and the Kerch Strait. On November 1, at night, at the head of a detachment of warships, he left for Poti due to the threat of enemy air strikes from the captured Crimea airfields.
    November 08, 1941 the battleship for the first time took part in the hostilities near Sevastopol. And in December, the battleship approached Sevastopol and opened fire on the enemy. As a result, 13 tanks, 8 guns, 4 tractors, 37 vehicles with military cargoes and up to half infantry battalion were destroyed.
    January 05, 1942 the battleship "Paris Commune" left Novorossiysk and guarded the destroyer "Boy" went to the Crimean coast for fire support of the 44th army that landed there. In 27 minutes, 168 main-caliber shells were fired.
    In the second half of March 1942, having entered the Kerch Strait, guarded by the leader of Tashkent, the destroyers Zheleznyakov and Boyky, the battleship carried out two fire attacks on the night of March 21 and 22, firing more than 300 shells on enemy fortifications on the Kerch Peninsula main caliber. During the shooting, metal fragments flew away from the gun barrels - the ship's armament was extremely worn out. Therefore, having returned to Poti, the battleship began to be repaired. After repair, the ship did not leave Poti. Only once, on September 12, 1942, he was transferred to Batumi, but after the start of a successful offensive at Stalingrad on November 25, he was returned back to Poti. On May 31, 1943, the name Sevastopol was restored to the battleship.
    For the successful completion of combat missions on July 8, 1945, the ship was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
    Since July 24, 1954, the battleship was used as a training ship. In 1956 he was expelled from the Navy and transferred to the OFI. In 1956-1957 it was disassembled at the Sevastopol base of Glavvtorchermet for metal.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 19: 47
    0
    The battleship "October Revolution": With the outbreak of the war, the LC "October Revolution" was transferred from Tallinn to Kronstadt, and at the end of September 1941 - to Leningrad, which defended against the invaders.
    On September 11, 1941, on the 125th shot, the middle gun of the bow tower was torn apart.
    September 21, 1941 was hit by three bombs in the bow, in the region of 14-29 frames. Bombs penetrated the middle deck and caused great damage, but did not damage the vital premises of the ship.
    September 27, 1941 was hit by a five-hundred-kilogram bomb. She broke through the upper and middle decks and exploded on the barbette of the second tower of the Civil Code, the barbet was destroyed, and the tower jammed.
    In 1944, the battleship supported the ground forces during the Krasnoselsko-Ropshinsky and Vyborg offensive operations.
    For exemplary performance of the combat missions of the command and the courage and bravery shown by the personnel on July 22, 1944, the battleship was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
    In total, during the years of the war, the battleship “October Revolution” conducted 126 firing of the main caliber, firing 1442 shells. Anti-aircraft gunners of the battleship repelled 24 enemy air raids, in which 597 aircraft participated, shooting down 13 and knocking out three of them. Six bombs fell out of the ship (out of 465 dropped on it), as well as 19 artillery shells.
    July 24, 1954 the ship was reclassified into a training battleship, and two years later expelled from the fleet.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 February 2014 19: 49
    0
    The battleship Sevastopol (Paris Commune): During the Great Patriotic War, participated in the defense of Sevastopol and the Kerch Strait. On November 1, at night, at the head of a detachment of warships, he left for Poti due to the threat of enemy air strikes from the captured Crimea airfields.
    November 08, 1941 the battleship for the first time took part in the hostilities near Sevastopol. And in December, the battleship approached Sevastopol and opened fire on the enemy. As a result, 13 tanks, 8 guns, 4 tractors, 37 vehicles with military cargoes and up to half infantry battalion were destroyed.
    January 05, 1942 the battleship "Paris Commune" left Novorossiysk and guarded the destroyer "Boy" went to the Crimean coast for fire support of the 44th army that landed there. In 27 minutes, 168 main-caliber shells were fired.
    In the second half of March 1942, having entered the Kerch Strait, guarded by the leader of Tashkent, the destroyers Zheleznyakov and Boyky, the battleship carried out two fire attacks on the night of March 21 and 22, firing more than 300 shells on enemy fortifications on the Kerch Peninsula main caliber. During the shooting, metal fragments flew away from the gun barrels - the ship's armament was extremely worn out. Therefore, having returned to Poti, the battleship began to be repaired. After repair, the ship did not leave Poti. Only once, on September 12, 1942, he was transferred to Batumi, but after the start of a successful offensive at Stalingrad on November 25, he was returned back to Poti. On May 31, 1943, the name Sevastopol was restored to the battleship.
    For the successful completion of combat missions on July 8, 1945, the ship was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
    Since July 24, 1954, the battleship was used as a training ship. In 1956 he was expelled from the Navy and transferred to the OFI. In 1956-1957 it was disassembled at the Sevastopol base of Glavvtorchermet for metal.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2014 21: 36
      +1
      Quote: okroshka79
      On November 1, at night, at the head of the warship detachment, he left for Poti due to the threat of enemy air strikes from captured Crimea airfields.

      It's just awesome heroic hike
      Quote: okroshka79
      08 November 1941 year battleship for the first time took part in the hostilities near Sevastopol

      Six campaigns of "Sevastopol":
      1941 year:
      - 27-30 dec,

      1942 year:
      - 5-6 Jan
      - 6-7 Jan
      - 10-13 Jan
      - February 26-28,
      - 20-23 March

      For comparison, the heroic defense of Sevastopol lasted from 12 of September 1941 to 9 of July 1942 of the year. Attention, the question is what was the "heroic" battleship Sevastopol ("Parisian commune") doing the rest of the time ??

      The rest of the war part of the war he was inactive
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2014 22: 10
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Attention, the question - what was the "heroic" battleship "Sevastopol" ("Paris Commune") doing all this time ??

        Especially if you remember ABC with its famous: "It takes 3 years to build a new ship. It takes 300 years to create a new tradition. The fleet will continue to evacuate from Malta!"
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2014 20: 17
    +2
    Battleships .... Their time has gone almost irrevocably. voices are now periodically heard now about the reservation of ships and their greater equipping with guns. I would call it dreams and fantasies. Just as sailboats irrevocably left in the days of steam, so did battleships in the days of rocket technology.
    From myself I will only add the words attributed to Nelson: people are not fighting ships, but people!
    How many opportunities missed by various admirals to show the real power of battleships! Indecision, cowardice, fear of losing, directives from above and many other both objective and subjective reasons hindered this. In what situations what circumstances hindered - everyone can think out and dream. And they sank ineptly and uselessly, and died heroically, and rusted at the bases, and were used as "fleet in being" and as floating batteries. But everything depended on people.
    And therefore we can only dream and nostalgia ... winked
    PS Personally, I really like Richelieu due to its aesthetics and fighting qualities, as well as its balance. A beautiful thing!
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 00: 37
      0
      This is a sail, if not mistaken smile
  • Nexus 6
    Nexus 6 10 February 2014 21: 46
    0
    Dreams of the author come true ..?) Http://warfiles.ru/show-47989-admiral-nahimov-stanet-raketnym-linkorom.html

    "In Severodvinsk, active work began on the repair and modernization of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser" Admiral Nakhimov "(former" Kalinin ") of project 11442" Orlan ". not just to reanimate, but to turn, in fact, into a partially armored "missile battleship" that has no analogues in the world. "
  • Cristall
    Cristall 11 February 2014 02: 30
    0
    Someone will answer the question why the Yapi made their "Varyag" made a smaller copy and picked up the showroom, but about the Russian Varyag, only talk about raising spare parts is underway ... \?
    As usual, we don’t even think about preserving the story. No wonder everyone can save, and we can’t. The problem is in ourselves.
    1. Blind
      Blind 11 February 2014 10: 38
      -1
      What kind of talk about raising spare parts of our Varangian is conducted where and by whom ??) In fact, the Japanese raised it 100 years ago .. and 90 years ago it was melted down to metal.
  • mashine
    mashine 11 February 2014 12: 18
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Test launch of "Caliber" from the submarine K-560 "Severodvinsk"

    This is a photo from tests of an emergency rocket fire. As I understand it, you have replaced concepts - having issued a photo for unsuccessful trials and with this you tried to laugh at the complex. I did not expect this from you
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 11 February 2014 14: 36
    +1
    In the wake of the dubious combat effectiveness of foreign battleships in the 2nd MV, our old battleships BF and Black Sea Fleet also like naval units did not prove themselves. Rather like large-caliber floating batteries. Their crews fought on land gloriously in the Marine Corps.
  • ICT
    ICT 11 February 2014 18: 40
    0
    Quote: Blind
    90 years ago melted into metal.


    It’s called they drove, but they didn’t take it, although I agree there’s nothing to really raise there


    http://www.vesti7.ru/news?id=2770
  • Sergey Vl.
    Sergey Vl. 12 February 2014 23: 45
    0
    Of course, battleships are not needed in their pure form, but frigates and paper-side cruisers are not long-livers now. We need ships that protect their armor and crew and equipment. No need to be afraid to displace more - you look, on the other side of France, through the strait, one island will be smaller ...
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 00: 32
    0
    I saw the title of the article, the first thought was Oleg Kaptsov, I have not read the article yet, so I don’t know yet, are the aircraft carriers sunk by artillery available? Now I will check smile
    1. Santa Fe
      13 February 2014 03: 20
      0
      Thank you for not forgetting.

      There is a mention of Glories and Gambier Bay
  • m3367
    m3367 23 February 2014 19: 09
    0
    The squadron in line, the line above the "T" is no longer relevant ... Likory is an expensive scrap metal, which did not justify the invested resources, but, damn it, beautiful ships ...