Military Review

Cruiser "Prince Eugen": through the whirlwinds of war

83
Cruiser "Prince Eugen": through the whirlwinds of war



In paradise - the mechanics, in hell - the police. When all nations want to do better, the Germans do it right. They have an exceptional tendency toward idealism and to a barbaric distortion of the achieved idealism.

It is difficult to write about the victory of the fascist weaponsbut, fortunately, this will not have to be done. Heavy cruisers of the type “Admiral Hipper” were doubtful in everything: they were extremely complex, expensive, overloaded with high-tech equipment, and they were very poorly protected compared to any of their rivals.

An abnormally large crew for ships of this class (1400-1600 sailors + additional specialists who were taken on board during the cruise).

Capricious steam turbine GEM.

Modest weapons by the standards of its class - high-quality, versatile, but without any frills.

It is striking that, unlike other countries, the Third Reich was spared from the tough “Washington” restrictions that set the standard displacement of cruisers at 10 thousand tons. However, the result was dubious. Even in the absence of strict restrictions (standard in / and German cruisers - over 14 thousand tons) and the presence of highly developed industry, the Germans built very mediocre ships, which became a formidable prophecy for future generations.

The ideas embodied in the “Hippers”: “radio electronics are above all”, “universality and multitasking”, “advanced means of detecting and controlling fire — to the detriment of traditional security and firepower” correspond, in one way or another, to the trends in modern shipbuilding.

However, even in this form, using primitive technologies 70-year-old, "Hippers" favorably differed from the modern "tins" by the presence of body armor and their highest survivability.

There were five of them: "Admiral Hipper", "Blucher", "Prince Eugen", "Seidlitz" (converted into an aircraft carrier, unfinished) and "Lyuttsov" (sold by the USSR with 70% ready, unfinished).



The most famous "Prince Eugen" - the only German heavy ship to survive to the end of the war. Bombing, bombing, torpedo attack, heavy navigational accident, Soviet and British raids aviation - the cruiser stubbornly "licked" the wounds and continued his battle path.

And then the second sun flashed in the sky, for a second lit up the Bikini Atoll with an unbearable light. When everything was quiet, the bulk of the Prince Eugen cruiser was still swaying on the surface of the lagoon. The second underwater explosion, Baker, did not help either - the German ship turned out to be stronger than nuclear fire!


Deactivation

The heavy cruiser “Prince Eugen” was a real legend - a monumental silhouette, a crew of the best Kriegsmarine volunteers and an active combat career throughout the war.

The cruiser immortalized his name by taking part in the battle in the Danish Strait (the sinking of the battlecruiser “Hood”). Unlike the Bismarck, the “Prince” managed to escape from retaliation from the British fleet and safely return to base. Then there was a daring transition from Brest to Germany, a short Norwegian cruise and a dull service in the cramped Baltic. At the end of the war, "Prince Eugen" shot 5 thousand shells at the advancing Soviet troops and fled to Copenhagen. After the war, went to the US reparations.


In the wake of the "Prince" - the terrible "Bismarck"

During his combat career, the "Prince" did not sink a single enemy ship, but he scored many moral victories over the enemy - which is his breakthrough through the English Channel, under the nose of all British aircraft and His Majesty's fleet.

Whether the decision to build this monster was right, or whether 109 million Reichsmarks could be spent more usefully, this rhetoric has the wrong message. Germany was doomed anyway.

The cruiser was built, fought without fear and reproach, distracted the considerable forces of the enemy. He shot down a dozen aircraft, damaged a British destroyer, received thanks from the land forces of the Waffen-SS.

Of course, during the construction of the cruiser, no one thought that it would be used as the “biggest gunboat of the Baltic”. "Prince Eugen" was created, as part of the fleet of Great Germany, which, in the near future, had to fight with Britain and the United States for control of the oceans!

But everything happened differently - Hitler gnawed a vial of poison, and the only surviving cruiser Kriegsmarine was sent to the test zone of nuclear weapons.

Technical features

The Prince Eugen compares favorably with their peers with a perfect set of detection tools (radar, infrared night vision systems, effective sonar systems - able to distinguish not only enemy submarines, but even individual torpedoes and mines in the water column!).

Command-range posts, stabilized in three planes, analog computers, PWAO - all posts were duplicated, dispersed and protected by armor. Radio electronics were continuously improved - in the area of ​​fire detection and control equipment, the “Prince” was unrivaled among other “Europeans”!

The presence of a large number of bulky and complex electronic equipment explains the need for numerous crews and such a high cost of the ship itself (the "Prince" in comparable prices was 2,5 times more expensive than the British TKr "County" in comparable prices).



Steam turbine power plant with power 133 600 HP Provided speed around 32,5 nodes. With a full supply of oil (4250 tons) cruiser cruising range was 5500 miles at economic speed 18 knots.

The armament of the “Prince” did not look so impressive against the background of American and, especially, Japanese cruisers:

- 8 guns of the main caliber (203 mm) in four towers - a mandatory minimum for the TKr of those years. For comparison: the standard for American TKr was nine 203 mm guns; for Japanese - 10;

- 12 universal guns (mm 105) in six paired installations - solid. In terms of the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns, only “Italians” and “Americans” could compete with the “Prince”;

- small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery: automatic guns caliber 20 and 37 mm, incl. five quad Flak 38 installations. Since the fall of 1944, the anti-aircraft armament has been reinforced with 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns. The general verdict is positive, the air defense of the cruiser was at a decent level.

- 4 three-pipe torpedo tubes, ammunition 12 torpedoes. In this parameter, the “Prince” was surpassed only by the Japanese with their “long lance”. For comparison - the British heavy cruisers carried half the torpedoes, the US did not have any torpedo weapons at all.

- air group: pneumatic catapult, two underdeck hangars, up to five reconnaissance seaplanes “Arado-196”.



In general, the Prince’s armament was typical of that era, but it can cause shock to the shipbuilders of the 21st century, accustomed to the compactness of modern launchers and the placing on the deck of weapons (which, of course, contributes to improving the stability of the ship).

Unlike modern UVP cells, the "Prince Eugen" was forced to carry powerful rotating towers, ranging in weight from 249 ("A" and "D") to 262 tons ("B" and "C"). And this is without barbets, the mechanization of the cellars and the ammunition supply system! Not less troubles were delivered by installations of universal artillery - each of them had a mass of 27 tons.

The old German cruiser is a silent reproach to modern shipbuilders building high-tech “shells” that die from unexploded rockets.

In this sense, the Prince had a complete order - problems with its security (compared to peers) fade against the background of the current situation, when one close surface blast is enough for a billion-dollar super ship to fail completely.

The Germans were different - they managed to cover the armor every inch of a warship!

In short, the Prince’s reservation scheme looked like this:

From 26 to 164, the main armored belt was 80 mm thick and from 2,75 to 3,75 meters high, with an inclination of 12,5 ° to the outside; the belt was overlapped at the ends of the 80 mm by armored traverse, perpendicularly located to the center plane of the ship.

At this, the booking of the hull did not end - a thinner belt with a thickness of 70 mm, equal in height to the main unit, went into the stern. On the sixth frame, it was closed with an 70 mm traverse bulkhead (in the German navy, the numbering of the frames was conducted from the stern). The nose section was also covered by a belt 40 mm thick (on the last three meters from the stem - 20 mm), while it had a greater height than the main b / c.

The horizontal defense system consisted of two armor decks:

- upper armored hull, 25 mm thick (above boiler rooms) and thinned to 12 mm in the bow and aft parts of the ship;

- the main armored hull, which also stretched along the entire length of the cruiser. Its thickness was 30 mm, only in the area of ​​the feed towers it locally increased to 40 mm, and in the nose part it decreased to 20 mm. The deck passed approximately 1 m below the upper edge of the armored belt, and its bevels were connected to its lower edge.

Of course, this is not all - the cruiser had a strong local booking. Armor was covered most of the combat positions and premises in the superstructure:

- conning tower - walls 150 mm, roof 50 mm;
- navigation bridge - 20 mm splinter armor;
- communication pipe with cables - 60 mm;
- Admiral Bridge, the main command and distance measuring post and all the premises below it - 20 mm;
- chimneys above the armor deck - 20 mm.

Finally, the barbets of the main-caliber towers (80 mm) and the protection of the towers themselves are from 160 mm (frontal plate) to 70 mm (side walls).

How correct was the decision of the German designers to make a full ship reservation?

The already small load reserve allocated for the armor installation was aggravated by its “spreading” throughout the cruiser’s entire structure - what was the meaning of the nasal “armor belt” just 20 mm thick? Why did you need to protect the chain box and room windshield?

Here we should not forget that the Germans designed their ships for the specific conditions of the Second World War: naval artillery duels, in which speed was of paramount importance. Numerous fragmentation holes could provoke the flooding of the nasal compartments - thus, leading to the "burying" of the nose in the water and reducing the speed of the cruiser, with all the ensuing consequences.


The result of hitting a torpedo with a submarine "Trident"

In general, by the “security” parameter, the German cruisers looked like full outsiders compared to other heavy cruisers of that era - the Italian Zara undoubtedly led, with armor belts 100… 150 mm thick and 85 mm total horizontal protection!

However, the German was not easy! Even such a primitive horizontal defense (25 + 30 mm) able to provide decent resistance to enemy air attack weapons.

For the first time, "Prince" met with the destructive power of bombs a month before his official entry into service. 2 July 1940 g. He came under the attack of British aviation and received a fugsku 227 kg in the area of ​​the LB engine room.

The bomb, as it should be, broke through the upper armored deck and exploded in the cockpit. The consequences of being are as follows: a hole in the deck with a diameter of 30 cm, a dent 4x8 meters, a galley, a chimney, electrical cables and bulkheads were damaged. On the upper deck, the motor boat was dropped and crashed, the catapult was damaged, the boat crane was damaged, one of the 105 mm artillery installations was scratched. Some fire control devices have failed (from the direct impact of the explosion products or the strong shaking of the hull - no data are available on this score).

However, the nature of the damage indicates that the bomb could not penetrate the main armored deck: the engine rooms remained intact. It was possible to avoid damage below the waterline. The artillery functional of the main and universal caliber has been preserved. Armor protected the ship and its crew from serious consequences.

If this episode had occurred on the high seas, the heavy cruiser would have kept the course, the power supply and most of its combat capability — which would allow it to continue with the combat mission (or return to the base on its own).


Manual rerun

The next hit of the bomb in the "Prince Eugen" resulted in a whole detective history with an unexpected outcome. The plot is simple - the description of the damage in official Russian-language sources is at odds with common sense.

In the 1942 year, during its imprisonment in Brest, the cruiser once again underwent a raid of British bombers. A series of six bombs "covered" the dock in which stood the "Prince Eugen", at the same time, one of them - a semi-armored 500-pound - hit the ship directly. The blow fell at the very edge of the deck, at a distance 0,2 m from the left side. The bomb broke through the thin upper deck and rushed down with a terrible roar, tearing off the counter bulkheads. Sliding along the bead, she reached the 30 mm bevel of the main armor, and, breaking through the next layer of armor, exploded in the lower rooms.

The explosion destroyed or partially damaged some of the premises, the second bottom and the outer skin of the bottom. Two compartments were flooded, in one of which the power station No. XXUMX was located. Part of the aggregates suffered from fragmental damage. Mechanical installation had no damage. As a result of the failure of the artillery post, the artillery of the Civil Code was partially damaged. Were 5-8 m distance from the center of the explosion 203 mm charges and 105 mm cartridges not hurt. A fire broke out in the explosion zone, which was soon extinguished by the personnel. The loss in the crew amounted to over 80 people.

- THEM. Korotkin "Combat Damage of Surface Ships" (L.1960 g)

In general, terrible - only one 227 kg bomb caused a fire, flooding, created a threat of detonation of the ammunition and led to the death of a large number of sailors. But was it really?

The first question is, how did you avoid detonation b / c - when the epicenter of the explosion was only 5-8 meters from the cellar? It is terrible to imagine what the 50 ... 100 explosion of a powerful blaster in a closed room would look like! The shock wave and thousands of red-hot fragments were to demolish and riddle all bulkheads within a radius of several tens of meters (the thickness of the bulkheads under the main deck is not more than 6-8 mm).

And if the danger of detonation of shells from a close explosion looks unconvincing (they are almost impossible to activate without a fuse), then the ignition of powder charges is a prerequisite in the above situation.

If we assume that the bomb pierced the armor and did not explode - then what caused the death of the 80 man?

Also, there is a great doubt about the presence of such a large number of people in the main artillery post and the premises of the ship’s generators - while standing at the dock, when electricity is supplied from the shore.

And finally, the mention of the flooding of two compartments - which could not be the principle: it is authentically known that the "Prince" was at the dock at that moment.

It seems that in the conditions of a shortage of primary sources, the author of the book incorrectly interpreted (or falsified) the facts of the military damage of the Prince Eugen cruiser.

According to the Russian researcher Oleg Teslenko, everything happened much simpler: the bomb could not penetrate the main armored deck and exploded in the cockpit of the personnel. This explains the large losses among the crew and automatically removes the question of the "miraculous salvation" of the powder cellar.

Thin 30 mm Bronepaluba perfectly fulfilled its mission, allowing to avoid much more serious consequences.

As for the serious damage to the interior and the death of a large number of seamen, this is the fault of the German engineers who designed the ship with such weak protection.

The heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen" is a good example of a warship designed both with regard to the traditional attributes of ships of the past (firepower, high speed, security), and taking into account a number of current trends (multifunctionality, information support, sophisticated means of detection and OMS).

The German experience was not the most successful, but it proved the feasibility of such projects in practice. Each of the elements of the heavy cruiser was useful in real combat conditions. The only problem was that the Germans wanted too much from the ship, which was created on the basis of 30's technologies.

It is easy to imagine what heights can be achieved today, after 80 years after the laying of the cruiser "Prince Eugen"!






So it should be the Nazis! Clash of the TKr "Prince Eugen" with the light cruiser "Leipzig"



... by this time the steel hull had become so radioactive that its deactivation for several months seemed impossible. 21 December, the remaining pumps no longer cope with the incoming water, the hull tilted, and the windows were below the surface of the sea. The Americans tried to save the ship by throwing it ashore, but the next day the last of the German heavy cruisers overturned and sank on the reefs of Kwajalein Island

Based on:
http://navycollection.narod.ru
http://www.prinzeugen.com
http://www.uic.unn.ru
http://wunderwafe.ru
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 28 March 2014 08: 25
    +7
    In fact, the TKR of fascist Germany against the background of their classmates look very depressing. Actually, these wolves were not particularly successful for Raeder.
    But the article is interesting.
  2. Takashi
    Takashi 28 March 2014 08: 38
    33
    I think, in vain, the author is ironic about the armor protection of a German ship.

    German designers were ahead of the whole Planet in the 30-40xx of the last century.

    This is missile weapons, the same gramophones, tape recorders !!! As regards marine shipbuilding: we bought class C submarines from them, German torpedo boats and self-propelled barges (as if unsinkable) were also shamelessly copied after us ... After the war, many countries unraveled the development of its designers into pieces all over the world.

    MB German shipbuilders built their cruisers on a certain theater VD,
    in the end, it is difficult to call the project of the ship that successfully survived 2 - nuclear underwater explosions unsuccessful.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 28 March 2014 09: 01
      +1
      I agree.
      I advise you to watch a film about the "pocket cruisers" campaign - when the sailors reached Germany from almost Australia, not only by sea, but also through the desert.
      As for the German constructions, they cunningly stepped out of Versailles’s limitations, just like our left-handed people riveted torpedo boats out there, with their help they captured Norway, and the English fleet was not sour.
      By the way, the man who led them home, the hero fell into disgrace in Nazi Germany and lived his life on the island, in oblivion and suspense ... Yes, by the way, it seems like he even spent time in a concentration camp first ...
      1. Moore
        Moore 28 March 2014 10: 27
        +7
        I assume you were referring to the sailors of the cruiser Emden during the First World War.
        "Pocket", if I'm not mistaken, it is customary to call some German battleships of the Second World War ....
      2. Alex
        Alex 7 July 2014 16: 49
        +2
        Quote: mirag2
        I advise you to watch a film about the "pocket cruisers" campaign - when the sailors reached Germany from almost Australia, not only by sea, but also through the desert.
        It looks like you are confusing something. This is an episode from WWI, in which there were no "pocket cruisers" at all. By the way, they weren't even in WWII either; the term "pocket battleships" was used to refer to three heavy cruisers of the "Deutschland" class. And two of them really raided: "Admiral Spee" was not entirely successful (died after the battle at La Plata), "Admiral Scheer" was much more successful (after almost a year of piracy, he successfully returned to Norway).
    2. Santa Fe
      28 March 2014 11: 52
      +1
      Quote: Takashi
      In vain, the author is ironic about the armor protection of a German ship.

      Those. do you think the Prince was better protected than the Italian Zara? (I'm not talking about the late Americans - "Baltimore" and "Cleveland")
      Quote: Takashi
      German designers were ahead of the rest

      It is not true. States were ahead
      Quote: Takashi
      This is missile weapons, the same gramophones, tape recorders!

      - Combat attack drone "Interstate" (1942 - used in battles in the Pacific Ocean; one of its creators was Vladimir Zvorykin)
      - Double Star "Pratt & Whitney" - 2400 HP All German attempts to create an "aviation wunderwaffe" were cheap toys against the backdrop of this engine, which provided the Yankees with air supremacy
      - an automated gyroscopic sight K-14, an anti-reloading flight suit - can any of you remember Goering’s order forbidding us to engage in a dogfight with the Mustangs?
      - the Germans were categorically incapable of building the 4's engine B-29 level bomber;
      - in the field of naval weapons Kriegsmarine - nothing against the backdrop of the US Navy;
      - finally, atomic weapons - the Germans were like Beijing before the creation of a nuclear bomb (or at least an operating reactor)
      - the first jet fighter "Gloucester Meteor" entered service with the Royal Air Force of Great Britain in the summer of 1944, in the field of tank building the Fritzes overtook the USSR; the first electronic computer ENIAC was built by the Americans in 1945

      The Germans had a high-quality engineering school and a well-developed industry - but they were not the trendsetters

      Gloucester Meteor. The Germans with their Me.262 are resting - Meteor surpassed the "Swallow" in almost all performance characteristics, including the main one - the reliability of jet engines
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 28 March 2014 13: 44
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        - finally, atomic weapons - the Germans were like Beijing before the creation of a nuclear bomb (or at least an operating reactor)

        It is believed that it was the German bombs that fell on Dzhaponchev.
        And he was only able to collect his mattress in 1947. (Well, like) hi
        1. Santa Fe
          28 March 2014 16: 03
          0
          Quote: Papakiko
          It is believed that it was the German bombs that fell on Dzhaponchev. And he could only collect his mattress in the 1947 year. (Well, supposedly)

          Just a bike from the pages of Komsomolskaya Pravda
          In fact:

          A) There are no objective prerequisites for Germany to overtake the States

          Yankees put together a team of top scientists from around the world - Oppenheimer, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi ... At the end of the 30, Frisch, Bethe, Sylard, Fuchs, Teller, Bloch left Germany - half of the luminaries of German science emigrated to the USA

          The military-industrial, economic and scientific potential of the Third Reich was many times less

          So why would Germany get ahead of the States?

          B) The real facts also contradict the hypotheses about the incredible successes of the German nuclear project


          "The Chicago Captive" - the world's first reactor launched in December 1942


          K-25 (the secret town of Oak Ridge in Tennessee) is the world's largest complex for the enrichment of uranium by gas diffusion. Can you name a similar structure in Germany? Not? And where then could the Germans get enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium to create three nuclear bombs? Probably from the sleeve

          But the German craft is an idle reactor from Higerloch. after the war it turned out that he would never work - the Germans miscalculated on 750 kg of uranium
          (museum layout, today)
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 29 March 2014 19: 17
            0
            from the SGAO "Vismut" (the USSR there, in the Eastern Zone of Occupation, then also mined almost all of its uranium), then in centrifuges - everything is like with people. why do you ask V?
            because Hitler didn’t use it and turned out to be more humane than those who bombed exclusively civilian Dresden (in which more than in both Japanese atomic cities died)?
            the gas diffusion method is pornography for American taxpayers and for Chinese suckers who peep :-)
            1. Alex
              Alex 7 July 2014 17: 23
              +2
              Quote: Kassandra
              from the SGAO "Vismut" (the USSR also mined almost all of its uranium there in the Eastern Zone of Occupation)
              Uranium in Europe (and not only in Western) is present, as in other things, and almost throughout the world (the element, whatever one may say, belongs to the group of scattered ones, i.e. it does not form deposits, but is present as an impurity to other related ones) . If the USSR mined it there, then the deposit was more prepared than our Yakut (or in the same Ukraine, Yellow Waters).

              then in a centrifuge - everything is like people
              The people of these centrifuges were not like batteries - hordes in cascades. They worked without stopping for several months, absorbing an immense amount of energy. Not to mention the rest of the costs, of which the salary of qualified personnel (here convicts from a concentration camp will not work) is not the last article.

              Quote: Kassandra
              Hitler didn’t apply and turned out to be more humane than those who bombed exclusively Dresden civilians
              I beg you - they also found a humanist for me. And the fact that the Allies turned out to be nits, no less than the possessed Fuhrer, does not do it better.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 29 March 2014 19: 09
          -1
          Well, yes, a German spoon surrendered to them right at the port on the east coast, in which there were more than 100kg of highly enriched uranium.
          known fact. if gun assemply then there to collect actually ..
          1. Santa Fe
            29 March 2014 19: 44
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            which was more than 100kg of highly enriched uranium.

            low enriched

            Uranium oxide and heavy water factory - baby pranks on centrifuges in Oak Ridge

            Two of the three American bombs were plutonium - only the Yankees could produce weapons-grade Pu239 on an industrial scale
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 23
              -1
              highly enriched, weapons. appointed by Japan
              gas diffusion method is NOT a centrifuge
              why plutonium when there are uranium?
              1. Santa Fe
                29 March 2014 20: 39
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                highly enriched, weapons. appointed by Japan

                low enriched conventional uranium oxide
                Quote: Kassandra
                why plutonium when there are uranium?

                Ask the creators of "Fat Man" and "Gadget" about it
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 50
                  -3
                  low enriched ordinary uranium oxide is what is mined in a quarry and carried by bulk carriers and not by submarines.
                  you need, you ask. I know.
                  the largest non-thermonuclear bomb is uranium, not plutonium! was tested at Woomera.
                  1. Alex
                    Alex 7 July 2014 17: 44
                    +2
                    Well, that's it, the end, it's time for the roofers to let out.
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    low enriched ordinary uranium oxide is what is mined in a quarry and carried by bulk carriers and not by submarines.

                    Uranium is indeed found in nature in the form of an oxide (an active metal, however), but in very small quantities (the average content in the earth's crust is 0,0003% (wt.)) And in the presence of a huge amount of silicon (by the way, the second most abundant element on earth crust and is a part of almost all oxygen-containing minerals and ores). In addition, the notorious "uranium ore" also contains thorium, lanthanum, cerium, yttrium (all are analogous elements, members of the lanthanide group), as well as molydbene, titanium, lead and a bunch of other things. To say that uranium oxide is mined in a quarry is like saying that iron is mined from meteorites.

                    the largest non-thermonuclear bomb is uranium, not plutonium!
                    In terms of their "weapon" qualities, U-235 and Pu-239 are practically identical, the power of a nuclear weapon (the coefficient of transformation of mass into energy) is determined not only by the type and amount of fissile material, but also by the method of obtaining criticality: two halves ("cannon scheme") , implosion (volumetric compression) and its variations (Swan design, for example).

                    Listen, learn at least the basics of nuclear physics (in terms of Wikipedia, or something), and then climb out with your nonsense.
              2. Alex
                Alex 7 July 2014 17: 28
                +2
                Quote: Kassandra
                highly enriched, weapons. the gas-diffusion method proposed by Japan is NOT centrifuged by plutonium when there is uranium?

                For Japan, this is generally nonsense.
                The gas diffusion method is much less effective than centrifugal.
                If the Americans had nothing (according to your logic), then where did they get so much plutonium from? It can only be obtained from the reactor from uranium-238, but before that it must be separated from uranium-235 (they have different characteristics and cannot be present in one process). In general, the ends meet you clearly do not converge.
          2. Alex
            Alex 7 July 2014 17: 24
            +2
            Quote: Kassandra
            Well, yes, a German spoon surrendered to them right at the port on the east coast, in which there were more than 100kg of highly enriched uranium.

            This is where they could enrich him? Do you even have a snack, or something, and even before delirium tremens for long.
        3. Alex
          Alex 7 July 2014 17: 14
          +2
          Quote: Papakiko
          There is an opinion that it was the German bombs that fell on Dzhaponchev. And he could only assemble his mattress in the 1947 year. (Well, like)

          That's it, that's typical. All these tales are the result of the brains of today's pseudo-analysts. If you want to figure it out, study the topic, you will see that the Germans were even farther from nuclear weapons than to Beijing (at least cancer, at least Plastunsky).
      2. El-bog
        El-bog 29 March 2014 08: 15
        +1
        Glosters (first models) produced 20 pcs. Me-262 fifteen hundred. The serial production of Gloucesters went only after 45 years. Regarding long-range bombers: the Germans, like the USSR, have a different bombing doctrine than the Americans. Due to different theaters. Therefore, we have a su-2, the Germans have u-87, they have a B-29. As for atomic weapons - it seems to me that everyone knows that the developments on the basis of which the USSR and the United States created "Kuzkin's mother" were stolen from the Fritzes
        1. Santa Fe
          29 March 2014 11: 05
          +1
          Quote: El-bog
          Gloucesters (first models) released 20 pcs.

          So what? This is only the first batch (F1)
          Since December 1944, a new, improved modification of the F3 began to arrive in combat units

          And all of them were released almost 4000
          Quote: El-bog
          Regarding long-range bombers: the Germans

          The Germans glued the "America-bomber" - Ta.400 throughout the war
          And the result? The level of German industry did not allow the construction of an aircraft similar to Superfortress
          Quote: El-bog
          everyone knows that the developments on the basis of which the ussr and the united states created "kuz'kina mother" were stolen from the Fritzes

          But I don’t know for example
          Please tell us how the United States stole the stolen German developments in the field of nuclear weapons - with specific facts and evidence.

          In addition to the first fission of the uranium nucleus in laboratory conditions (Otto Gahn, 1938 year) and the production of a couple of tons of primary components of the future reactor, no other German achievements were noted in this matter

          Neglecting the production of weapons-grade plutonium on an industrial scale

          PS / Regarding the USSR, this is a completely different story. And the KGB searched for developments on this topic mainly overseas
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra 29 March 2014 19: 06
          +3
          Yes, this is a famous troll. He writes smoothly! I met one such ... Englishman.
          Werner von Braun, like almost all NAZA, maybe he also had an American? Or can Americans build airships after the WWII (they then flew semi-rigid in NORAD AWACS until the mid-1970s)? Or maybe the British with their collapsed R-100 and R-101 built them for the Americans? And the Cepellin branch of the company not moved to the USA :-)
          There was not a single battle between Gloucesters and Messers, while the latter felled bombers.
          "Improved Gloucesters" in the role of attack aircraft at the very end of WWII shot several German piston aircraft that had long been standing without fuel at the ALREADY captured airfield on camera. This is called "target practice" - that's all their credit.
          The KGB was looking for little overseas, it’s time to stop sniffing Klaus Fuchs socks and Ethel Rosenberg’s underpants, because Einstein sketched the BCH at the Berlin (!) University before the war, then he left and wrote a letter to the American condom that nuclear weapons are being developed in Germany, after which the Manhattan project began in the USA in which egg-headed schizos made a mistake with the output of the fission reaction of plutonium nuclei by an order of magnitude and spent the entire state reserve of pure silver on completely unnecessary Vesch (kalyutron).
          The Germans had a bomb at the very end of the war. Just after crossing the Rhine, it was too late to use it. They would not have kept the Oder either. They were late with the deployment of their nuclear weapons by only 2-3 weeks. That is why
          The raid on Dresden was 2 days after the British realized that the Germans did not have time with their nuclear weapons. When it came to them themselves, they shot all of their V-2s with conventional warheads instead of nuclear or chemical ones and separately opened the Western Front while continuing to fight in the East. And their high-altitude scout flew out of the Courland Cauldron every day for weather reconnaissance over Moscow.
          Two of the three WWII German heavy water nuclear reactors are still of interest, and the Norwegian commandos blew up a heavy water factory in the occupied Norway and not a pencil factory or something else - the American reactor was just a heap of graphite. :-)))
          And they are all like that. Just really unterman or burger eaters. There is no place for the brains to come from, stocks alone on the mind, or this:
          youtube.com/watch?v=QQlNgBfXjfM
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 06
          +2
          Early helicopter engineering is also almost entirely German.
          The Russians were not up to it; they were driven into a collective farm. And the rest of the head works differently.
          Sikorsky as well as Hughes didn’t advance in helicopters only after the USA fell into the hands of a captured German model in North Africa in 1942, before that Sikorsky’s helicopter had as many as three tail rotors and could not fly forward (therefore, it simply turned the seat - if you can’t fly back, it’s not so critical). Well, isn’t you insanity?
          The English helicopter, like the Mi-1, is just a copy of the German Fokke-Wulf helicopter :-)))
          Kamov did his thing in the USSR, after the war
          Nobody in the West except the Germans was able to overcome the problem of flutter of a helicopter blade, so they only had helicopters for the first 15 years. Moreover, each ship was a little larger than a boat.
          Nobody knew how to build big rockets, the Americans only knew how to explode, or fly in a zigzag, even the photo of tacoe is with Goddard, he is so proud there - it flies strange but at least so.
          No one in the west knew how during WWI and afterwards to build large rigid airships - as with helicopters, no one could calculate what happens to the structure under aerodynamic and inertial loads on it. The English experience consisted of only two airships, one of which collapsed on the first flight with passengers, and on the second, after the American German was asked "why", they immediately went rolling so that no one in the investigation would appreciate all the "genius" of British engineering which considered their frames simply as truss static railway bridges, and then multiplied them with a margin of safety by 2.
          Horror! Yo

          Just a polar fox.
        4. Kassandra
          Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 36
          0
          PS. and he really does not like Harriers, despite the fact that they are English and shot down at the Falklands 23: 0
          The developments on nuclear weapons were not stolen, of which no one made a secret at the University of Berlin before WW2 (Einstein worked there as a laboratory assistant). In 1 + 1 = 2 and the subsequent "badaboom" in general as is there is nothing complicated. It is just that before the occupation of Germany, the USSR did not have its own uranium. It was found on the territory of the USSR and began to be industrially developed only in 1965.
        5. Kassandra
          Kassandra 31 March 2014 14: 49
          -2
          The USSR was not up to that, although there were a dozen Pe-8s.
          Japan also had a four-engine Nakajima 6 pieces, which were saved for the delivery of bacteriological weapons. The Nazis have Me-263 and the like, piece America bombers, which were also saved for the chemical and nuclear. Moreover, German and Japanese strategists were better than the B-29.
          The Germans also had a massive semi-strategist He-177, their usual tactical front-line aviation had a radius of one and a half times larger due to the use of airfield launch boosters (RATO, the aircraft was thrown into the air with internal and hanging tanks filled to capacity), which made it possible to dispense with fewer planes and rare short-run airfields.
          And of course, jet Arado, which without loss were used for reconnaissance and point strikes against the UK. And somehow the Gloucesters could not interfere with their work, having recorded in their air pads only from 7 to 11 pieces of the V-1 shot down by them.
        6. Alex
          Alex 7 July 2014 17: 46
          +2
          Quote: El-bog
          As for atomic weapons, it seems to me that everyone knows that the developments on the basis of which the USSR and the United States created "Kuzkin's mother" were stolen from the Fritzes

          Yeah. And also rockets, a Kalashnikov assault rifle and horse riding in the fresh air.
    3. Ostwind
      Ostwind 29 March 2014 20: 24
      +2
      Indeed, the Germans knew how to create weapons - me 262, stg44, "royal tiger", but they could not only create, saturate their army, navy, aviation, squeezing the last "juices" from outdated weapons - Pz IV, me 109.

      http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/927/yrwn286.jpg

      But this was not enough in the end.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 March 2014 20: 42
        0
        Quote: OstWind
        Indeed, the Germans knew how to create weapons - me 262, stg44, "royal tiger", but only create,

        And who did not know how?

        If we list American and British developments (incidentally, implemented on an industrial scale) - no comment length is enough
        It's just that they often write about the German "wunderwaffe" in the yellow press, but few people have heard about American achievements.

        Unmanned drone (bomber, torpedo bomber) Interstate TDR-1
        Behind - Avenger with operators
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 53
          +1
          controlled by wire?
          Also write down "Aphrodite" in the achievement where Kennedy's brother exploded.
          American Achievements = 001/7
          :-)))
          1. Santa Fe
            29 March 2014 21: 02
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            controlled by wire?

            No, remote control up to 50 miles

            The system is based on the small-sized Block-1 video camera created by Vladimir Zvorykin

            The Germans with their stupid Fau-Xnumx go forest

            UAV "Interstate" on the deck of an aircraft carrier
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 31 March 2014 03: 31
              -1
              1. it still didn’t work, and V-1 killed more than in Blitz
              2. But is it nothing that industrial television in the 1930s was commonplace in German factories?
              1. Alex
                Alex 7 July 2014 17: 51
                +1
                Quote: Kassandra
                But is it nothing that in German factories industrial television in 1930x was in the order of things?
                Yes, about this industrial television more talk than business. In fact, video shows with porn from the early Gorbachev period.
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra 31 March 2014 04: 09
              0
              This "typoy" V-1 the Americans then copied the tunic-in-tunic (Republic-Ford JB-2 Loon), especially in order to push them from the submarine,
              And with the V-2, the Americans were even worse - they could not copy them and they had to hire Germans to their NAZA for money and citizenship, and then the first satellite was not theirs. Pride didn’t allow the little ones, and therefore they flew into space for the first and last time later than mattresses on the Moon.
              The French have the same thing with respect to the Arians - the engine operator generally had only one, captured German.
              Threat. The Germans had their own radio fuses, moreover, they were better (hardly suppressed by interference, unlike the Americans, see the Proximity_fuze Wikipedia article), they generally had problems fighting the kamikazes before and after the attacks on the dams, they were massively bombed from above, so they successfully developed and developed jet fighter interceptors and missiles. Fortunately for the allies, even synthetic kerosene was scarce, and to the detriment of Lippish P.20, the Me-262 was made (this was spoiled by Messerschmitt, for whom Lippis worked then), he also crushed his coal plane with the Kronach-Lorin engine as best he could. If it weren’t for that, then allied aviation was just dared, and the Germans would have at least some chance. Therefore, in fact, Willy is not very fond of in Germany.
              1. Alex
                Alex 7 July 2014 17: 52
                +2
                The failures of the Americans in the field of jet propulsion are not yet proof of the genius of the Germans. who was the first in space is well known.
            3. Kassandra
              Kassandra 31 March 2014 04: 45
              -1
              ZZY. America is a country of emigrants, they work - they. their children from the local circumcision system are already becoming almost as kind as the Americans themselves.
              Well, who better to do? The one who stayed at home (unless of course they give him something to do there), or the one who left?
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 29 March 2014 21: 06
        0
        they just ran out of gas, even synthetic
        and kerosene too - of the 1500 issued Me-262, only 300 flew
        it makes sense to stop the debugged production of the T-4 if it generally coped with the Shermans, and even the Hetzer were in short supply (converted to self-propelled self-propelled Czech war tanks, by the way very dangerous) because there were many more Soviet tanks?
        1. Alex
          Alex 7 July 2014 18: 07
          +2
          Quote: Kassandra
          because there were many times more Soviet tanks

          Well, come on, continue about "corpses filled up."
    4. Alex
      Alex 7 July 2014 16: 26
      +2
      Quote: Takashi
      German designers were ahead of the whole Planet in the 30-40xx of the last century.
      Another fan of the "dark Teutonic genius". Already tired of writing explanations.

      missile weapons
      Which didn't do a damn thing. "V-2" only in such sandals on the map as London and could get, everything else for them outside of fantasy. About "V-1" in a decent society, it is better not to stutter at all, even this was not good enough. Shooting these "rattles" for the RAF was a safari-class entertainment: both recklessly and completely safe. And always with a positive result.
      The only things that worked were rocket mortars and Me-262, but they didn’t do the weather either. If they had studied the technique more carefully, they would not have written such nonsense.
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 March 2014 09: 10
    +2
    So it should be the Nazis! Clash of the TKr "Prince Eugen" with the light cruiser "Leipzig"

    And where are the fascist ships? These are German ships, not Italian ones.
    And who is the author? Judging by the next praise of the armored ships, this is ... Oleg, come out, get your weapon in the snow and uphill your hands!
    1. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 28 March 2014 11: 36
      +3
      And praising the use of armor on ships, in your opinion, in modern conditions, is stupid :)))?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 March 2014 18: 12
        0
        Quote: Russkiy53
        And praising the use of armor on ships, in your opinion, in modern conditions, is stupid :)))?

        Without the ability to make a complete design calculation, no doubt. Analogies in type so it was then, so now it is possible from the category of "finger to the sky".
        1. Santa Fe
          28 March 2014 18: 53
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Not being able to make a complete calculation of the design

          Let the designers NorthropGrumman and Navantia do this - whose job responsibilities include such calculations and who receives the salary for this
          Quote: Nayhas
          Analogies in type so it was then, so now it is possible from the category of "finger to the sky".

          The dimensions of the systems are known, the masses are known, the layout is known.
          Where the heavy towers of the Civil Code stood, the below-deck UVP can be installed. It is obvious as black and white.
          There is no reason prohibiting such metamorphoses - as successful projects have confirmed conversion of WWII era cruisers into missile cruisers (even despite the imperfection of technology in the middle of the last century)

  4. UVB
    UVB 28 March 2014 09: 28
    12
    But what cannot be taken away from the Germans is that the Hippers, as well as the outwardly similar Bismarck and Tirpitz, were the most beautiful warships in the world. Just as the Soviet ones later became.
    1. Alex
      Alex 7 July 2014 18: 09
      +2
      Quote: UVB
      externally similar "Bismarck" with "Tirpitz"

      They were not just outwardly similar - they were twins.
  5. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 28 March 2014 10: 01
    +2
    Thank you for the article.
  6. Aleksandr12
    Aleksandr12 28 March 2014 11: 05
    +9
    Nemchur built good ships. Only an insufficient number and weak tactics did not allow the Germans to gain dominance at sea.
  7. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 28 March 2014 11: 08
    0
    Very similar to the Bismarck silhouette. Impressed by the number of seaplanes, but still
    it seems an exaggeration.
    1. ICT
      ICT 29 March 2014 04: 54
      0
      Quote: Sledgehammer
      very similar to Bismarck

      there is an opinion that is why he was confused with him in the battle with Hood
  8. Santa Fe
    28 March 2014 11: 35
    0
    It’s scary to imagine what an explosion would look like. 50 ... 100 kg powerful brisant in a closed room! The shock wave and thousands of incandescent fragments had to tear down and riddle all bulkheads within a radius of several tens of meters (the thickness of the bulkheads under the main armored deck does not exceed 6-8 mm).

    An example is cruel, but indicative

    3 kg of TNT
  9. sub307
    sub307 28 March 2014 12: 58
    +3
    A good story about an outstanding ship.
  10. stoqn477
    stoqn477 28 March 2014 13: 53
    0
    The ship has survived all Allied attacks during World War II, it is worth admiration. Maybe less armored than the Italian, but the Frogs raised a white flag and were shot by the British without achieving anything special. By the way, there is a version that the shell destroyed the "Hood" from this cruiser. Do not forget that the "Hood" is not battleships and does not have such serious armor.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 55
      +1
      Finished MGIMO?
  11. Yarik
    Yarik 28 March 2014 14: 58
    +2
    UVB Today, 09:28
    But what cannot be taken away from the Germans is that the Hippers, as well as the outwardly similar Bismarck and Tirpitz, were the most beautiful warships in the world. Just as the Soviet ones later became.

    This is an amateur, it seems, "the most beautiful". For me, the Italian "Bolzano" is much nicer. Besides, it’s just better. Ours were not fools, they did not finish building the "Luttsov". Imho.

    The heavy cruiser Bolzano was laid down on June 11, 1930, launched on August 31, 1932, and entered service on August 19, 1933.
    The standard displacement is 11 tons, a total of 065 tons, 13 propellers, the power of turbo-gear units is 885 - 4 hp, and the speed is 150 knots. The greatest length is 000 m, width 173, average recess 772 m.
    Reservation: belt 75 mm, deck 50 mm, conning tower 100 mm, towers of the main caliber 100 mm. Armament: 8 - 203 mm guns (maximum elevation angle 45 °, maximum firing range 31 566 m), 12 - 100 mm anti-aircraft guns (from 1937 - 16 100 mm anti-aircraft guns), 8 - 37 mm anti-aircraft guns, 8 - 13,2 mm anti-aircraft guns, 8 torpedo tubes, 2 aircraft, 1 catapult.
  12. Russkiy53
    Russkiy53 28 March 2014 15: 51
    +4
    The Bismarck managed to immediately hit the Hood; the battle cruiser armor, sacrificed for speed, let a German shell pass through it, and it burst inside the cellars. An infernal explosion shook one of the best ships of the British fleet - out of 1400 crew men, only three...
    "Bismarck" went under water, with empty cellars ... the artillery of the battleship shot all the shells (aiming) to the last (V. Pikul "Requiem for a caravan pq-17")
    Task: the main damaging factors of anti-ship warheads are blast wave; high temperature; SHARPT of ammunition and SHIP DESIGNs torn by a blast wave ... Question: how many times the number of victims among the ship’s crew increases, in the absence of armor :)))?
  13. Russkiy53
    Russkiy53 28 March 2014 15: 53
    +5
    As an infantryman, I tell you: "You can sing deframbo systems like" Oren ", but no grape-shot radars can replace a hundred mm armor :))) !!!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 31 March 2014 04: 34
      -1
      while they are singing in Russia, it was already in Israel after the second Lebanese one, copied to and introduced into the troops a long time ago.
  14. Russkiy53
    Russkiy53 28 March 2014 15: 57
    +2
    So, no ship’s air defense system :))) will save as many people as there will be armored sorting between the ship’s premises:))) !!!
  15. antonio
    antonio 28 March 2014 17: 54
    0
    Again the gloomy genius of the Nazis! Let's start besides the capricious GEM and the artillery fire control system, the princes did not stand out. The author forgets how Blucher was sunk by the Norwegians with the help of old Krupp howitzers and LARGE torpedo tubes ..
    1. Santa Fe
      28 March 2014 18: 26
      +2
      Quote: antonio
      Let's start besides the capricious GEM and the artillery fire control system, the princes did not stand out

      By World War II, it became fully clear that the ship’s artillery weapons were as effective as their firing control system. In this respect German heavy cruisers are an example of an exceptionally successful combination weapons and their means of aiming at the target, perhaps the best in this class

      And here is another advantage -
      The cruisers were equipped with an efficient sonar system. One of them - passive "NHG" - was used mainly for navigation purposes. The second system, "GHG", also of a passive type, was more effective and was used mainly for detecting submarines, although torpedoes fired at the ship were repeatedly "spotted" with its help. In addition to passive weapons, which were of high quality in the German fleet, the cruisers also had an active "S" system, similar in principle of action and efficiency to the British "ASDIC". It also made it possible, under certain conditions, to detect even such small objects as, for example, mines.
      Quote: antonio
      The author forgets how Blucher sank the Norwegians

      What makes you think that the author forgot about this fight?
      Quote: antonio
      with old Krupp howitzers

      Quite decent guns, 280 mm
      Any of the modern cruisers will die from one hit with such a blank


      Battery on about. Oskarsborg - it was these guns that drowned Tkr Blucher


      Yes, and 150 mm cannon posed no less a threat - due to the short distance and weak armor protection "Blucher"
      Quote: antonio
      FORTRESS torpedo tubes ..

      What surprised you so much? Coastal torpedo tubes - a typical combat technique of those years, usually stood at the entrances to large bases
      Use them in the Norwegian fjords - nature itself commands
      1. antonio
        antonio 28 March 2014 18: 44
        0
        The princes exceeded the displacement of all classmates, and lost to them in booking and in artillery systems. The stabilized anti-aircraft mounts of 105 mm were inferior in all respects to the American 127 mm in terms of versatility and ammunition power. The Germans themselves recognized them as not entirely successful ships, expensive and difficult to operate. The GEM was generally the Achilles' heel of the princes. And most importantly, it was not clear why these Kriegsmarin ships.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 March 2014 19: 11
          +1
          Quote: antonio
          The princes exceeded the displacement of all classmates, and lost to them in booking and in artillery systems ..

          And all classmates lost to Hippers in terms of OMS capabilities

          In comparison with the Americans, the Hippers had TAs that had never been in the American TCR
          Compared with the Japanese - the absence of a dangerous overload of the hull, 3 times more heavy anti-aircraft guns and approximately the same booking (the armor was higher for japs, but covered a smaller area)
          Quote: antonio
          The 105-mm stabilized anti-aircraft mounts were inferior in all respects to the American 127mm

          Well, not quite like that - the rate of fire of the 105 mm was higher
          The only problem was that the Germans did not have anti-aircraft shells with a radar fuse. German design thought was objectively inferior to American
          Quote: antonio
          not entirely successful ships, expensive and difficult to operate.

          Yes not that word
          Quote: antonio
          And most importantly, it was not clear why these Kriegsmarin ships.

          Nach dem Spiel will jeder wissen, wie man hätte ausspielen mussen - at the end of the game everyone knows what had to be done to win (German proverb)

          Mk.53 anti-aircraft shell
          1. antonio
            antonio 28 March 2014 19: 48
            -1
            The cost of Princes Hipper (85,9 million marks, Prince Ongain (104,5 million marks), it is enough to compare with the valuable carmine (80-90 million marks) and real battleships of the Scharnhorst type (175 million) or Bismarck. (180-200 million) in order to understand how expensive the not too many advantages of German heavy cruisers were bought.And compared to the price of submarines, everything just fades, one Hipper is equivalent to 25 submarines.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 March 2014 01: 07
              0
              Quote: antonio
              or "Bismarck" (180-200 million), in order to understand how expensive the not too many advantages of the German heavy cruisers were bought.

              Such paradoxes are very common.
              Eugen's current price is based on R&D for the creation of the ship and its most advanced equipment

              an example from the 6s - expensive nuclear "Long Beach"
              modern example - "Zamvolt" (7 billion) - more expensive than another aircraft carrier

              What is the argument about? The high cost of the ship and its slightly larger displacement are justified by its versatility, the installation of advanced SLAs and some other advantages over peers; he had his weighty advantages
              Quote: antonio
              Best SUAO in the class this is hardly

              The powerful equipment for firing on the Hipper bore fruit: at 7:05, a 203-mm shell hit the Berwick's rear turret. Fortunately for the British, it did not explode, breaking through the thin 25-mm plating, but the Berwick lost a quarter of its artillery. The Germans switched to armor-piercing shells, and after 3 minutes they achieved a second hit at the waterline at the level of the elevated bow tower. The British cruiser began to take water through the hole. The third round hit the nose 102-mm anti-aircraft gun on the starboard side, rolled it off the base and ricocheted, exploding in the chimney.
              The German cruiser won the artillery battle without any damage, and achieved 4 hits of 174 fired 203-mm shells - 2,3%, which in extremely bad weather conditions can be considered a satisfactory result

              Quote: antonio
              Americans had the opportunity to fire according to radar

              But the Germans didn’t have? - by the end of the war, this chip was known to all
              Quote: antonio
              The Japanese had a fire control system for night battle

              Japanese crews prepared for night dueling
              But no special ones. funds were not required for this - except for searchlights and lighting missiles; with the development of radar tactics came to naught

              USS Quincy CA-39 under fire (night battle at Savo Island)
            2. Alex
              Alex 7 July 2014 18: 17
              +2
              Quote: antonio
              and real battleships of the Scharnhorst class

              The Scharnhorst (like the Gneisenau) is a battle cruiser.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 29 March 2014 19: 39
            -1
            German engineering thought surpassed the Americans and the British in everything except the magnetrons (the Germans used a different solution, now used).
            these shells were widely used only in Okinawa against kamikaze.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 March 2014 19: 46
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              these shells were widely used only in Okinawa against kamikaze.

              better not lie

              Mk.53 massively used since the fall of 1942
              20 million pieces
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 38
                +1
                you're lying moreover.
                the first mass application against Japanese kamikazes.
      2. antonio
        antonio 28 March 2014 20: 59
        +3
        This is hardly the best SUAO in the class. The Americans had the opportunity to fire according to the radar, not to mention the fact that universal artillery and air defense systems had radar guidance. The Japanese had a fire control system for a night battle and demonstrated their skill more than once.
    2. Vyalik
      Vyalik 30 March 2014 15: 31
      0
      Only you forgot to say that "Blucher" was moving along the fjord, its guns were in the diametrical plane. And the Norwegians were shooting literally at arm's length. And they fired not with one shell or torpedo, but with a volley from several devices. But howitzers pierce very thick armor and reinforced concrete. And by the way, I have never read how many hits in "Blucher". Maybe someone has data on this.
  16. Artem1967
    Artem1967 28 March 2014 20: 13
    +2
    Quote: mirag2
    I advise you to watch a film about the "pocket cruisers" campaign - when the sailors reached Germany from almost Australia, not only by sea, but also through the desert.


    Most likely, this refers to the transfer of part of the crew of the light cruiser Emden after the sinking of the latter near the Cocos Islands in 1914. This has nothing to do with "pocket battleships".
  17. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 28 March 2014 22: 33
    +4
    I saw and considered for a long time in Kaliningrad the layout of the cruiser "Prince Eugen", no matter what someone said - the ship is beautiful! and as it turned out to be very tenacious, which is especially important for a ship of this class. And how was the stability calculated, the metocentric height! For its time it was an excellent ship, it is a pity that we didn’t get it when we split it.
  18. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 28 March 2014 23: 22
    +3
    In fact, it’s completely incorrect to draw direct parallels of a ship of the Second World War with ships of our time. Regarding armoring and armament, all this was by no means weak, but at the same time it cannot be said that these components were outstanding. and in general the defense, as such is moderate, the same should be said about the main caliber. The bet was not made on the brute power of the volley, but on the quality of fire control — look at the result of the New Year’s fight of Admiral Heeper with Berwick (type County) -Hipe 5 made direct hits that caused significant damage, the British never hit the Germans. The Germans retreated, because there were 2 light cruisers nearby, the forces were too unequal. In general, there are a lot of absurd conclusions from the author. Since when, speed is considered the most important factor for ships of those times ??? Since when did the Hypers become outsiders on the reservation? Since when is booking the extremities of warships of those times even symbolic considered a mistake? In general, a fat minus and nothing more.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 March 2014 01: 27
      +1
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      In fact, it is completely incorrect to draw direct parallels of a ship of the Second World War with ships of our time.

      And why is it non-parallel? Another Archimedes law?
      Familiar names - Boston, Galveston, Albany?

      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      look at the result of the New Year's fight Admiral Hyper

      After which Raeder was dismissed?)))

      But you are certainly right, the HMS of the Hippers were beyond praise
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      In general, the author has a lot of absurd conclusions

      Well, in your comment there are even more of them - everything was piled on one heap: the New Year’s fight, the fight with Berwick, and doubts about the need for high speed and parallelism)))
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Since when has speed been considered the most important factor

      From the beginning of the era of navigation until the advent of radar and URO
      Le Terrible's record - 45 knots, unthinkable for modern destroyers
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Since when did Hyper become an outsider on a reservation?

      Since all TKr peers have b / p thickness exceeded 100 mm, and horizontal protection - 60 mm
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Since when is the reservation of the extremities of warships of those times, even if symbolic considered a mistake?

      You have to be careful
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      In general, fat minus and nothing more.

      I think I'll survive it

      In any case, thank you for your interest and the time spent reading hi
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 29 March 2014 18: 07
        +2
        The New Year’s fight on December 25 of the 1941 on the attack of the military convoy is what I had in mind, not the New Year’s shame, as you thought! How can we talk about comparing modern ships and ships of the Second World War ??? favorably with modern tins "I don’t have any words at all. How did such a thing as accelerator cells get into an article about World War II cruisers ??? Do you need to be careful? Booking extremities at that time was considered a big plus actually! Speed ​​was considered the most important factor at that time Italians and only- as their fleet ended the war because of a policy of records, I think you know. Regarding the reservation with the Italians 4 cruisers like Zara, the French only Algeri, here are all the heavy cruisers in Europe that were superior to the Hypers in armor. The Italians Bolzano Trento and Trieste had weaker protection, the French Duchenne, Tourville, Suffren, Colbert, Foch, Duplet had weaker protection. Of the European fleets, only 5 ships (and even the enemy side belonged only to 1) had really more powerful protection. Japanese cruisers are not too We greatly exceeded them in terms of booking power. But the Americans in particular, Baltimore exceeded them in this respect, and even then not all of them were inferior in vertical reservation either. Let me remind you that the advantage in the 1 barrel is not considered significant either, here 2-3 is already more or less sensitive difference. In any case, you should have carefully read what I wrote.
        1. Santa Fe
          29 March 2014 19: 29
          +2
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Fight on New Year's Eve on December 25, 1941 of the year with an attack by a military convoy, that's what I meant

          It is very difficult to understand what you mean - you are constantly interfering with a bunch of events. "Hipper's New Year's Fight" is a common designation for the shame that happened on 31.12.42/25/1940. And the fight with Berwick is a fight with Berwick (I left a comment on this a little higher). By the way, it happened on December XNUMX, XNUMX.
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Booking of extremities at that time was considered a big plus actually!

          And who claimed the opposite ??
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Speed ​​was considered the most important factor at that time.

          Everyone has. WWII ships were much faster than today. Now not every destroyer is able to develop 30 bonds. - and then 35-40 was considered the norm. Pre-launch era
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          The Italians Bolzano Trento and Trieste had weaker protection

          They are significantly smaller and older in age.
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          at the French Duchenne, Tourville, Suffren

          They are older than the Hippers by 10 years and less by 5000 tons
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          2-3 is already a more or less sensitive difference

          Mioko, Takao - 10 HA trunks against 8 at Hipper
          Moreover, the Japanese had higher speed
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          favorably with modern cans, I have no words at all

          Those. you think it’s normal when a ship for a billion dollars can be put out of action by an unexploded rocket or by an explosion of a bag of improvised explosives near the side - any WWII cruiser would return under its own power

          Why was it possible to build normal, adequately protected ships before - and now they are building squalor, like the plywood Orly Burke
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 29 March 2014 23: 00
            +2
            These are modern realities! What can you do! The lack of armor does not make modern ships squalid! Everyone ??? Again, step on the same rake ..... If it were all the most important parameter, the same Hyper and its sisterships would have a higher speed! The British didn’t bother with speed at all and their fleet didn’t show themselves badly! I repeat once again only Italians were chasing purposefully! Ships should have balanced characteristics, the Battle of Jutland showed in the most obvious way that it’s not worth chasing speed t, as the British did with their battlecruisers. The Italians chased - as a result, their fleet suffered a crushing defeat, losing almost everything that could be lost. On the issue of armor, taking into account modern realities, in the era of missile weapons, and with those requirements and the tasks facing modern ships, armor is hardly appropriate for a number of reasons. About Mioko, Takao I know very well and could not write.
            1. Santa Fe
              30 March 2014 04: 12
              +1
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              These are modern realities! What can you do!

              I am sure the situation will change - after the first serious clash at sea. Life moves in a spiral - many forgotten elements have returned again (large-caliber guns of the destroyer Zamvolt)
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              The lack of armor does not make modern ships squalid!

              Lack of armor makes them non-combat units
              What is the use of these pelvis, if they die from the slightest impact from the enemy
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              If it were for everyone the most important parameter, then the same Hyper and its sisterships would have a higher speed!

              A) ANY cruiser / destroyer of that era faster than any modern ship
              B) ALL heavy cruisers (foreign analogues of the Hipper) were dissected at 32-35 nodes

              Speed ​​was one of the most important qualities in the pre-rocket era. I don’t know why you were so divided and trying to prove the obviously absurd idea: that speed did not matter during artillery duels
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              only Italians deliberately pursued speed!

              Not a fact, not a fact
              The record belongs to the French LeTerribl
              And what are the Japanese!
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              The battle of Jutland showed in the most obvious way that you should not chase speed, as the British did with their battlecruisers

              One of the outcomes of Jutland - the fusion of battleships and battlecruisers into one class - for good reason the Yankees designated them fast battleship. The sailors did not want to sacrifice any speed. nor security
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              as a result, their fleet suffered a crushing defeat, losing almost everything that can be lost

              Everything is relative. Pasta also has something to be proud of

              And most importantly - how is the high speed of some Italian cruisers related to the defeat of the Italian fleet ??
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing 30 March 2014 10: 26
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The lack of armor makes them non-combat units. What is the use of these pelvis if they die from the slightest impact from the enemy

                This means that it is not necessary to allow the influence on the pelvis from the enemy. For example, lengthening the "arm" and "eyes" with the help of carrier-based aircraft.
                1. Santa Fe
                  30 March 2014 14: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Dunno
                  This means that it is not necessary to allow exposure to the pelvis from the enemy

                  These are the words, comrade Dunno. In practice, there is no guarantee that active self-defense will work
                  That there is no idiot who turns off the radar (Sheffield) or leaves for breakfast, forgetting to turn on the warning and the Phalanx (Hanit)

                  And those. the capabilities of the systems themselves (performance, reliability) do not guarantee that an attack will be repelled - an attack on USS Stark or a recent drone ram on the Chancellorsville cruiser ($ 33 ​​million in damage)
                  Quote: Dunno
                  For example, lengthening the "arm" and "eyes" with the help of carrier-based aircraft.

                  Does it somehow save the destroyer Zamvolt from the rocket launched from the shore or a volley of hail? (for example, when providing fire support)

                  Deck aviation (as well as coastal aviation) will not protect against a salvo of low-flying anti-ship missiles from a submarine. And nothing will help if the Arab punks decides to release Kassam (an incident in the Jordanian port) or just to destroy the US Navy destroyer (Cole destroyer in Aden)

                  And this is a warship? More like a tin coffin
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 31 March 2014 03: 35
                    -1
                    deck aircraft will drown a boat at a distance of 1700 miles
              2. Anton Gavrilov
                Anton Gavrilov 30 March 2014 23: 12
                0
                1. Santa Fe
                  31 March 2014 04: 41
                  0
                  As with the tip booking, you made a noise from scratch. Speed ​​was important in the era of artillery duels. And absolutely everyone was fond of her - any cruiser / destroyer of those years is faster than a modern ship on 5-10 nodes

                  Yes, the Italians achieved the greatest success in this. After all, they did not have to worry about autonomy - Italy is located in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, all the bases are on hand. Long trips were not planned. As a result, the reserve was spent on increasing the power of the power plant.

                  The defeat of the Italian fleet has nothing to do with the passion for speedThe reasons there are different - mediocre command, lack of radar and the desire to fight. What else can I talk about if they were too lazy to pull the anti-torpedo net (raid on Taranto)
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  useless against nuclear warhead missiles

                  Rocket and nuclear weapons removed from service under the START treaty. This threat can be neglected, as well as Martian combat tripods.
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  a good concussion resulting in inconsistencies and interruptions

                  It is much better to burn and sink along the enemy coast with a good half of the team

                  depreciation of equipment, all connectors on screws and latches, fiber optic communication lines
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  How many cases were there during WWII when ship radars went out of order

                  Modern microcircuits are hundreds of times more resistant to shocks and vibrations than radio tubes of 70 years ago

                  There is a precedent - the detonation of the cruiser Princeton on an Iraqi bottom mine (1991). The operation of the radar SPY-1 and BIUS Aegis was restored after 15 minutes
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Modern ships cost a lot of money, they are very difficult to manufacture

                  At the same time they die from unexploded rockets or a bag with improvised explosives
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Think about how much their cost and complexity will increase after booking.

                  The cost of the Aegis destroyer Orly Burke has already exceeded 2 billion dollars.
                  the extra 200-300 million will no longer make the weather, but will provide an INCOMPARABLE level of protection and a chance to survive and continue to carry out the task after fire contact with the enemy (the billionth Burke in its modern form will die with one touch)

                  As for the manufacturing complexity, it’s enough to recall that half a century ago, in spite of outdated metalworking technologies, armored TKr were built by dozens. Cleveland type - laid down 52 units! Even the USSR cheerfully riveted 20 cases 68-bis
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Not all countries in general can build warships, how many of them will remain if everyone together decides to switch back to armor?

                  One might think now of many countries that have large surface ships. USA, Japan, Great Britain, France, China, South Korea, India, RF
                  The rest ride boats and corvettes in the coastal zone
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  And the result will be very, very doubtful.

                  No doubt, than to lose a ship for 2 billion from an unexploded rocket or $ 300 feluccas with a bag of explosives
                  1. Anton Gavrilov
                    Anton Gavrilov April 1 2014 11: 44
                    0
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 1 2014 19: 43
                      -1
                      Belgrano his armor from a torpedo with a conventional warhead greatly helped?
                      and from a rocket torpedo?
                    2. Santa Fe
                      April 1 2014 23: 52
                      0
                      Please read the article carefully, it was about the danger of losing speed in battle due to flooding of the nasal extremities. Only. And you made a noise from scratch

                      The Italians' TCRs were better booked than their British or Japanese counterparts. Light cr. - they are like leaders, there is no armor a priori. About the death of Giussano and Co - they were sunk by torpedoes, the armor had nothing to do with it. "The pursuit of speed" has nothing to do with the loss of the Italians, the reasons are different

                      Modern ships are much slower than WWII ships. Daring - 29 knot German F125 - 26 knot
                      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                      Not a single destroyer had a reservation, including in the era of artillery!

                      Modern destroyers - and there are cruisers. In and 10 and more than thousand tons
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 2 2014 02: 23
                        -1
                        There is no great need to strongly arm the extremities, especially the nasal. If this is certainly not a battering ram. Look at the drawings of Iow, Yamato and their photo above. This is a cleaver breakwater, where there is almost no buoyancy in the internal volume.
                        The armored Belgrano was also sunk by a torpedo. Here is "bought for metal" 68pr they just got tired of drowning them, they had to open the Kingston.
                      2. Anton Gavrilov
                        Anton Gavrilov April 3 2014 21: 19
                        0
                        This is true only for cruisers like Paul. Light cruisers do not have armor ??? What are you! La Galisonier gave odds to some heavy cruisers! You have focused on speed, so I brought you a fact! Has I already told you the 4 time that in the pursuit of speed they sacrificed other important qualities, primarily your armor and weapons, a significant part of their ships had unbalanced characteristics. This is one of the reasons that led to their defeat, there is also the lack of command, disgusting naval intelligence, disgusting interaction action with aviation, complete unpreparedness for night battles, etc. Project 956 Sarych-33 nodes, destroyers such as Orly Burke 32 nodes, Zwolvt-30 nodes, almost all Japanese destroyers have a speed of 30 nodes. This is formal and nothing more, just destroyers as a type of ship evolved and became larger.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        April 3 2014 22: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                        Light cruisers have no armor?

                        CR lungs were different
                        LaGalisonier - a full total of over 9 thousand tons
                        Italians Di Giussano and Co. - 6-7 thousand tons, it is closer to the leaders, shatterproof booking
                        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                        in pursuit of speed, they sacrificed other important qualities

                        The only significant drawback of the Italian KR was the lack of radar.

                        Weak booking of light cruisers - the reason is not in the pursuit of speed, but in their small size. By the way, they were perfectly armed
                        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                        Project 956 Sarych-33 node

                        It was 40 years ago

                        the great bailout of all 30 bonds.
                        LaFayette stealth frigates - 24-25 knots
                        degrading))
                        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                        This is formal and nothing more, just destroyers as a type of ship have evolved and become larger.

                        So why are you in the past comments so outraged
                        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                        Not a single destroyer had a reservation, including in the era of artillery!

                        Previously, they didn’t - now they could get it. They are 3-5 times larger than their WWII ancestors

                        Atago and Akebono (type Murasame). Destroyers are growing before our eyes!
                      4. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 3 2014 23: 35
                        -1
                        the Japanese now have all the destroyers, even light aircraft carriers.
                2. Santa Fe
                  April 2 2014 00: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  What other 200-300 millions, the price will rise much more!

                  70 years ago TKr built in dozens - obviously, the cost and complexity of installing armor is nonsense compared to the modern high-tech "stuffing"
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  could not produce thicker xnumx mm

                  Now that much is not required. Enough 76 mm (3 ")
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  now none of this is left

                  And where do the armor for the tanks?))
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  But other countries will be very tight with this

                  These are their problems
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  even during the heyday of armor, ships were not fully armored; for example, most of the ships of the last generation of the extremity were bare

                  It makes sense to book an MO with expensive turbines, a power plant, ammunition (UVP), cover up the CIC and cockpits. (three-inch side + longitudinal shatterproof bulkhead along the aisles at the side). Traverse armored bulkheads between compartments.
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Well, do not forget, 300 kg of explosives is not so little!

                  Surface explosion, outside the board - 200 ... 300 kg BB is not enough. Any TKr would get rid of a tattered board
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  If the Cole destroyer was provided with armor, then it is far from a fact

                  Fact - Compare with the demolition of the cruiser York
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  the consequences would be a little better from an explosion in the center of the hull

                  The extremity can be torn off altogether, just like the cruiser Pittsburgh: the crew is alive, the ship retained combat effectiveness and returned under its own power

                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  RCC flying at a speed of 3000 km per hour, with a warhead in 300 kg of destructive explosives

                  The chance of meeting such weapons tends to zero
                  But getting on board Harpoon or Exozet (a boat with terrorists, Kassam, a volley of MLRS Grad) is more than great
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  and of course compared the explosion of mines weak

                  Weak - the Princeton cruiser cracked in half))))))

                  seriously - an underwater explosion is several times more destructive than a surface explosion (with the same mass of explosives)
                  1. Anton Gavrilov
                    Anton Gavrilov April 3 2014 21: 06
                    0
                    70 years ago, 70 years ago, now the conditions are completely different! Now very few countries can’t afford the destroyer, not to mention something more! Considering the power of Russian anti-ship missiles, the prospects of laser weapons and a railgun, armor for tanks and armor for ships, things are actually different! And actually armor for a destroyer with a displacement of 10000 tons, 2-3 thousand tons at least, to ensure a good reserved volume. Well, really whose else .... Kubrick has never been booked .. .. REV with add-ons and extremities In any case, it will not be possible to navigate normally - with gaping holes in the bow and stern with demolished add-ons and destroyed REVs, large losses in the crew, the ship will lose its combat efficiency for a very long time. This is not so little at all! You can tear off the extremity! ????? Are you aware that you will have to limit the speed very much, know what kind of bulk repairs will be to be repaired then and how much the ship will repair then! Fight at Tasafarong, in Kula Bay, fight at Kolombangar in the end when 2 Brooklyn-type light cruisers St louis and Honolulu got hit in the nose - as a result, they returned to the theater only after about 5 months. To zero? Actually, the Onyx variants under the names Bramos and Yakhont are in service with four other countries besides Russia! There is such a thing as the Bastion complex! Certainly stronger, but the mine still had a rather weak charge.
                  2. Santa Fe
                    April 3 2014 22: 48
                    0
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    Now very few countries can not afford the destroyer

                    These are their problems. the Papuans could not build a cruiser before - only the leading powers had ocean fleets
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    prospects for laser weapons and railgun

                    How about the prospect of getting aboard the Yingji from Hezbollah fighters or encountering a felucca with a sack of TNT
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    armor for a destroyer with a displacement of 10000 tons, 2-3 thousand tons minimum

                    Not. Armor weight ~ 15% of the standard on / and (security level TKR Baltimore). Armor can be included in the power set of the hull, saving on the mass of hull structures
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    Kubrick has never been booked

                    Technology does not stand still.
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    RE with add-ons and extremities will not be able to book normally anyway

                    http://topwar.ru/38443-est-li-bronya-ot-udarov-sudby.html
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    speed will have to be very limited

                    We are not in the Tsushima battle
                    Modern naval combat - one surprise salvo of anti-ship missiles and that's it. No hours-long duels and 100 shells hitting the battleship Eagle (by the way, do you know how much the loss of its crew was?)

                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    in the know what volumetric repair then to be

                    At times less than when building a new ship.

                    The lack of armor on modern ships has no rational explanation. The reason seems to be the same - if highly protected ships appear, then where will the USA get their 84 Burke and Ticonderoges?
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    are in service with four more countries besides Russia!

                    RCC Harpoon - 30 countries of the world
                    Hezbollah rascals even have Yinjie RCC
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    There is such a thing as the Bastion complex!

                    This is profanity
                    1. The bastion does not matter without an over-the-horizon target designation system
                    2. The dimensions of the complex are monstrous, it will be calculated and destroyed in the first minutes of the war.
                  3. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 3 2014 23: 43
                    -1
                    The ship is even bigger than the Bastion.
                    Rocket-torpedoes are quite a rational explanation for the absence of classic "irons". The Japanese battleships were destroyed mainly by torpedoes. Armor belt somehow did not help from this. And the armored decks (as well as on the tirpitz) from tallboys from Lancaster, B-17 and B-29, the latter, by the way, had its perfect sight just for this.
                  4. Santa Fe
                    April 4 2014 01: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Rocket-torpedoes are quite a rational explanation for the absence of classic "irons".

                    What other missile torpedoes

                    This is a pure anti-submarine weapon, NK cannot be sunk by them
                  5. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 4 2014 01: 24
                    -1
                    Submarine in the water position too?
                    winked
                  6. Santa Fe
                    April 4 2014 01: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Submarine in the water position too?

                    If she has an air defense system
                  7. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 4 2014 02: 54
                    0
                    Rocket torpedoes are just thrown into the water from the near missile defense and air defense systems of the NK.
                    And the submarines working on the NK use "torpedo-rocket-torpedoes", pushing them out of the TA, so that when they get out of the water, the torpedo becomes a rocket, flew through the air further and faster, then at the terminal section it again became a torpedo with an underwater explosion under the keel of the NK with everyone resulting.
                    Therefore, no large-caliber armor-piercing'a ... Such a thing will drown Iowa almost as well as a tin.
                  8. Santa Fe
                    April 4 2014 03: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    pushing them out of the TA, so that coming out of the water, the torpedo becomes a rocket, fly through the air further and faster

                    You are aware that the aquatic environment is 800 times denser than air

                    And before you fall into the water, you must somehow extinguish the speed
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Such a thing would drown Iowa with almost as much success as a tin.

                    Small-sized 324 mm torpedo with a charge of 44 kg BB?
                    Iowa won't even notice her
                  9. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 4 2014 03: 24
                    0
                    Somehow they extinguish ... They will hook one that they will notice. Dimension TA submarine and PU Basalt / Granite what?
                  10. Santa Fe
                    April 4 2014 10: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Somehow extinguish ..

                    Parachute

                    Modern SAM and ZRAK - daggers, phalanxes - bring down targets in supersonic. A canoe descending by parachute a mile from the side of the ship - riddled far and wide

                    Rocket torpedoes are useless against NK
                  11. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 5 2014 02: 56
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Parachute


                    Truth? I did not know ... And there are also supersonic parachutes, retro-rockets and air brakes. And brake parachutes on which planes do not descend.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Modern SAM and ZRAK - daggers, phalanxes - bring down targets in supersonic.


                    Are rockets useful?

                    She does not need to parachute down a mile from the ship, she quickly slows down in horizontal flight and goes under water until reaching the CIWS milestone. And then look for her with bombers or a universal caliber. And if she has a flurry at the end, then in general, do not look. This is the meaning of recent efforts with arrays of power GA speakers to the entire side designed to jam the fish.

                    All kinds of ASROKs descend on a parachute, which are a jet bomb, unlike Ikara.
                  12. Santa Fe
                    April 5 2014 13: 00
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And brake parachutes on which planes do not descend.

                    The main thing is that you have to slow down

                    Phalanxes love such targets
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    All kinds of ASROKs descend on a parachute, which are a jet bomb, unlike Ikara.

                    Ikara also went down by parachute
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    and goes under water until reaching the CIWS milestone.

                    Why only CIWS?
                    Aster-30 hits on 30 km
                    ESSM on 50

                    A torpedo can detect and catch a ship from a distance of 50 km?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And if she has a flurry at the end, then in general, do not look

                    Of course do not look. An uncontrollable flurry - moves in a straight line (and it is impossible to make it manageable)
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Are rockets useful?

                    They go above the water at a speed close to sonic.
                  13. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 5 2014 21: 51
                    0
                    Icarus is just anti-submarine like ASROC.
                    The main thing is that this will happen before the turn of the phalanx, and the air defense system at this altitude will not take or just miss from braking.
                    Well, if the RRCs go above the water and not "under it" and even subsonic ones, then the phalanx will just take them. A torpedo is not.
                    The flurry is very manageable. Like all the earliest torpedoes. In order to walk in a straight line.
                    50km? An anti-ship missile torpedo, unlike just a torpedo, is just a long-arm weapon.
                  14. Santa Fe
                    April 5 2014 22: 23
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Icarus is just anti-submarine like ASROC.

                    Wow yes really
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    The main thing is that this will happen before the turn of the phalanx

                    But what about overseas RAM or ESSM?

                    At what distance from the ship should the torpedo enter the water? And how much will such a missile torpedo weigh? (starting weight)
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    But the torpedo - no.

                    Sure, not a problem. Just find a way to safely slow down - under the fire of ship SAM and ZRAK
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    A flurry is very manageable

                    upright
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    50km?

                    Exactly
                    At such a distance, you have to open the parachute and dive into the water (If you do not want to get under the air defense system)
                  15. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 5 2014 23: 17
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Wow yes really

                    And what is wrong?

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    But what about overseas RAM or ESSM?

                    But what about all this ordinary RCC?

                    Deletion is very fast. To the turn of ZRAK.
                    Torpedoes going for 50km by the way there.

                    Straight forward even the first whitehead,
                    It was to the fact that a flurry is put into the water already remember the course to the target.
                  16. Santa Fe
                    April 6 2014 02: 08
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    But what about all this ordinary RCC?

                    They go to the PMV at transonic speed

                    They'll be discovered too late
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    To the turn of ZRAK

                    ZRAK is not everything
                    Dagger, M-22, Aster-30 and ESSM are waiting for your rocket torpedo

                    Range 30-50 km, flight altitude of several hundred meters, a huge slow canoe by parachute - it will be solved from length to side
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Torpedoes going for 50km by the way there.

                    They weigh two tons

                    What should be the starting mass of a rocket torpedo - if its warhead (torpedo) weighs 1,5-2 tons?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    It was to the fact that a flurry is put into the water already remember the course to the target.

                    Dream
                  17. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 6 2014 04: 06
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Dream

                    see wiki: "Self-guided, no homing."

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    the flight altitude is several hundred meters, ... a slow canoe by parachute - it will riddle up and down

                    If you read something about ASROC, then you don’t have to think that all missile torpedoes fly and slow down that way.
                    above it was already

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    They'll be discovered too late

                    a missile carrying a torpedo will be discovered no earlier.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Dagger, M-22, Aster-30 and ESSM are waiting for your rocket torpedo


                    They are waiting for a missile not carrying a torpedo

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    They weigh two tons

                    And Phalanx effectively hits 3,6km and not 50

                    They already wrote on the Internet that there are anti-ship missiles in which the warhead dives so that the explosion is underwater, almost not even about the Basalts (they just wrote that it dives several tens of meters from the side).
                  18. Santa Fe
                    April 6 2014 14: 55
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    has no homing. "

                    QED

                    About how it is put already remembering the course for the maneuvering target - tell someone else. an error of only 1 degrees from a distance of 5 km will miss 90 meters
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    all missile torpedoes fly and slow down that way.

                    And how are the rest slowed down?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    a missile carrying a torpedo will be discovered

                    before
                    and knock down one or two - due to its huge size and low speed
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    They are waiting for a missile not carrying a torpedo

                    RCC is not going to extinguish speed near the target
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And Phalanx effectively hits 3,6km and not 50

                    But on 50 it gets ESSM
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    They wrote already on the Internet that there are anti-ship missiles in which warhead diving

                    800 times the density difference
                    saw what happens to airplanes when they hit water?
                  19. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 6 2014 22: 42
                    0
                    1. there will be no error, the torpedo to exit the TA somehow then also is not mistaken,
                    GOS are put on slow
                    2. Repeat: a. air brakes b. retro rockets / thrust reverse, sec. brake parachute
                    all this (or without the last point, which is approx. for braking by fighters on the runway) occurs sequentially and in horizontal low-altitude flight. For a time shorter than the output of anti-ship missiles at launch at marching speed
                    3. no gigantomania, a number of countries had at one time an extension of TA by 1,5-3 meters
                    4. the phalanx will even fail to fly there, even if it suddenly strikes like a goalkeeper
                    SAM will get no better than conventional anti-ship missiles, from a maneuver to avoid braking in speed, there are even more chances that it will miss.
                    It's all been around for a long time.
                    5. And what happens to shells? Or with warheads entering the ship’s hull?

                    ASROC compared to all this, it’s not a rocket torpedo but a jet torpedo
                    SUBROC - Depth Jet Bomb
                  20. Santa Fe
                    April 7 2014 04: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    GOS are put on slow

                    So the Flurry is canceled))

                    Erect torpedoes fired during WWII from a distance of 10 cab. - almost point blank. Moreover, they were fanned out in 4-8 pieces, so that at least one hit the target
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Repeat: a. air brakes

                    The booster of such a system will weigh a couple of tons
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    no gigantomania

                    Warhead (homing torp.) - 1,5 tons
                    brake booster - 2 tons
                    Total 3,5 tons of payload

                    For comparison - Granite with a starting weight of 7 tons had a payload of 750 kg. and how much will your imagination weigh?)))
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    from a maneuver to avoid speed braking is even more likely to miss.

                    Do not write nonsense
                    The air defense system has a correction over the entire flight area - the slower the target, the better
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    It's all been around for a long time.

                    For example
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And what happens to shells?

                    Do you want to compare the mechanical strength of a shell and rocket torpedoes?)))
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    ASROC compared to all this, it’s not a rocket torpedo but a jet torpedo

                    Asrok, SeaLance - everyone uses a parachute
                  21. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 7 2014 05: 21
                    0
                    To the Flurry, this fan spreads how?

                    you left the topic and forgot to see what reverse thrust and air brakes are
                    Starting boosters and even less, which also can’t fly anywhere with fuel production ...

                    So do not write nonsense yourself - from the air defense system they shy away from maneuvering in height, course and speed. For speed, braking is not recommended for an airplane for obvious reasons (if it doesn’t go downhill only after that), and a torpedo rocket is braked once before a dive.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Do you want to compare the mechanical strength of a shell and rocket torpedoes?


                    shell and penetrating into the metal of the ship (8 times denser than water)

                    take Tomahawk launched from TA and imagine how to make it fly some part of its route above the water and some under it.

                    ASROC was generally called a missile torpedo not quite right, and SUBROC - with its main bomb, all the more
                    This might make sense.
                  22. Santa Fe
                    April 7 2014 14: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    To the Flurry, this fan spreads how?

                    None. A flurry cannot be applied in the way you described.
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Starting boosters and even less

                    Granite launch accelerator - 1760 kg
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    shell and penetrating metal ship (8 times denser than water) RCC warhead

                    There the metal cat cried - 10 mm

                    Naturally, a heavy warhead flashes the board like a butter knife. despite the fact that the fur. the strength of the anti-ship missile system is much higher than that of your thin-walled rocket launcher

                    Warhead Granita

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    take Tomahawk launched from TA and imagine how to make it fly some part of its route above the water and some under it.

                    Payload Ax 340 kg
                    That is how much a small-sized torpedo MK.50 weighs (length 3 m, range - 15 km, charge 45 kg of explosives - like an elephant shot)

                    True, in the case of the Tomahawk, there is no reserve for the brake booster - it will be necessary to slow down the speed with a parachute. And this means when approaching the target you need to have a headroom of several hundred meters - an ideal target for air defense systems
                  23. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 7 2014 20: 28
                    0
                    Can't a flurry dump? Why else? Have you been banned from the State Department?

                    Granite weighs a lot at the start, and for the start it is not necessary to use high-pulse fuel.
                    If warhead granite goes under water for a few des.m. to the goal it’s not a torpedo.

                    You write that the weight of the warhead ax is half Granitovsky. Which by the way flies far. And under the water of his last step to go km 5 I'm not 15.

                    The main reason why you get hooked is that the ASROC anti-submarine is RUNNING down by parachute.
                    ASROC does this because it flies ballistic. She - should fall.
                    Of course, no one ever wants to stick a soft-landing system to her, how do the Apollo and BRDM come together, but why? Although it may be.
                    Is the plane parachuted in a free fall before landing on the runway?
                    Prior to this - air brakes (weigh nothing), reverse thrust of the marching engine (weighs nothing), retro-rockets that weigh something even stood on the fragile heavy laden S-130
                  24. Santa Fe
                    April 7 2014 21: 51
                    0
                    Your mistake is a misunderstanding of the simplest laws of aerodynamics



                    Pay attention to the size of the wings of the Kyrgyz Republic. Lift power provided by HIGH SPEED ROCKETS

                    in other words, the Kyrgyz Republic has a very high stall speed (150 or more m / s), she is not able to fly at low speeds. Single-mode aircraft.


                    in case of loss of speed - the wing's lift decreases on a quadratic basis. When flying at extremely low altitude, the CR will not have time to extinguish speed and will crash into the water

                    The only way is to have a few hundred meters in height left. But then your PLUR will be an excellent target for the SAM

                    + weight and size problems - there one torpedo weighs 2 times more than the warheads of the largest RCC in the world (Granite)
                  25. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 7 2014 23: 31
                    0
                    And how does it even start? It slows down before falling into the water.
                    The rest was already.
                  26. Santa Fe
                    April 8 2014 00: 22
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And how does it even start?

                    Booster boost

                    The first seconds flies along a ballistic trajectory - until it picks up speed to create lift on the wing
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    It slows down before falling into the water.

                    KR there is no need to slow down at the target

                    Anti-submarine PLURs use a detachable warhead by parachute
                  27. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 8 2014 08: 48
                    0
                    Let them use it. Those that fall as well as start on ballistic.
                    And those who do not ballistic (tomahawks for example) conceived lower their tail and somehow do not fall at the same time.
                  28. Santa Fe
                    April 8 2014 20: 23
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    And those that are not ballistic (tomahawks for example)

                    Tomahawk kicks off on ballistic
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    conceived lower tail

                    What are you talking about?
                  29. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 9 2014 05: 11
                    0
                    By ballistic start do you mean what?
                    From TA submarines, do the tomahawks also start ballistically?
                    Start the tomahawks with battleships see ...
                  30. Santa Fe
                    April 9 2014 14: 19
                    0
                    Answered at the bottom of the branch
  19. Kassandra
    Kassandra April 4 2014 02: 59
    0
    They canned them at one time, in general, not so much because of the armor as because of the guns. To work along the coast and to be able to quickly get rid of the 68pr cruiser hanging out next to the AUG without letting him cheaply and angrily damage the flight decks of the aircraft carrier guarded by the battleship. All the same, the torpedo goes in the water for a long time, and the 406mm shell flies faster and will not be taken by CIWS.
  • rezident
    rezident 29 March 2014 01: 57
    0
    The ship is beautiful the rest is all mediocre.
  • Kot bazilio
    Kot bazilio 29 March 2014 02: 54
    +3
    An article on "0" is not a plus or a minus.
    1. Eugen, Hyper, Scharnhorst, Heisenau - were built as Raiders and used as Raiders.
    Hence the turbo-gear units and rapid contours (which greatly worsened the PTZ in the stern), rational booking sufficient for a raider - speed, and again speed. The task is to slip into the Atlantic and drive unarmed / weakly armed convoys and single transports / weakly protected warships (for that and TA, and an abundance of electronics and universal caliber - not to sink tin dry cargo ships with the main caliber!) The most striking examples are Scharnhorst - Arc Royal, the Scharnhorst raid in the Atlantic, and not to arrange "hacks" with the Grand Fleet.
    2. Reservation, by the way, is a separate issue - an example - the hardest last fight of the same Scharnhorst, when his English was hollowed out in droves of 152, 203 and 356 mm and even finished with torpedoes. It was not so weak.
    3. Sorry antonio, but Scharnhorst has never been a battleship. He and his sistership - Heisenau - are all the same heavy cruisers. Bismarck, Tirpitz - yes.
    4. "Pocket battleships" - cruisers of the "Deutschland" type. Diesel power unit, etc. Built, if memory serves, taking into account Washington restrictions.
    hi
    1. Santa Fe
      29 March 2014 03: 06
      +1
      Quote: Kot Bazilio
      speed, and again speed.

      Did the Germans stand out by this parameter compared to the TCR of other countries?
      Quote: Kot Bazilio
      "hacks" with the Grand Fleet.

      "Zaruby" with the entire surface component of the Royal Navy
      Quote: Kot Bazilio
      Booking, by the way, is a separate issue - an example - the hardest last fight of the same Scharnhorst, when his English was hollowed out in droves from 152, 203 and 356 mm and they were also torpedoed. It was not so weak.

      And here the battleship Scharnhorst
      when it came to TKr like Admiral Hipper
      Quote: Kot Bazilio
      but Scharnhorst was never a battleship. He and his sistership - Heisenau - are all the same heavy cruisers

      You invented it yourself

      Gneisenau-type battleships were 2,5 times larger than Hipper-type battleships - under 40 thousand tons
      350 mm armor, 11 inch guns of the Civil Code (in the project - re-equipment of 15 inches), medium (150 mm) and universal (105 mm) calibers
      The most powerful ships on the North Atlantic Theater
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 29 March 2014 19: 29
        +2
        the cuts were such that for one Bismarck and Eugen (who by the way left) the whole grand fleet ran, and then the whole grand fleet almost threw caravans and was hovering from Tirpitz.
        because the gyro-stabilized main caliber with radar guidance (and not just detection) is much better than just the main caliber, and the sad fate of Hood is witness to that.
      2. Kars
        Kars 29 March 2014 20: 05
        +1
        Quote: Kot Bazilio
        4. "Pocket battleships" - cruisers of the "Deutschland" type. Diesel power unit, etc. Built, if memory serves, taking into account Washington restrictions.


        Versailles restrictions. Which by the way violated.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 2 2014 02: 42
          0
          ah-oh, and who, one wonders, allowed?
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 2 2014 02: 40
        0
        the Hood battle cruiser was 1,5 times larger in displacement and caliber than the gneisenau (and slightly inferior in armor), so the latter is sometimes designated TKr
        1. Santa Fe
          April 2 2014 12: 14
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          the Hood battle cruiser was 1,5 times larger in displacement and caliber than the gneisenau (and slightly inferior in armor), so the latter is sometimes designated TKr

          Hood - battle cruiser (high-speed battleship with weakened armor - later they grew together in one class with battleships)

          It has nothing to do with TKr
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 2 2014 13: 01
            0
            the point is that a cruiser should not be more like a battleship.
            Germans Gneisenau themselves designate battleship
  • Kars
    Kars 29 March 2014 19: 49
    +1
    It is strange that I did not notice this article yesterday.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 March 2014 19: 57
      0
      So you dig day and night anti-tank ditches on the border with the Russian Federation. What ships are there

      Hi, by the way.
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 March 2014 20: 03
        +1
        dig excavators

        hello.
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 March 2014 20: 14
          +1
          By the way, it’s a very possible option, the rumor has already gone.
          1. Santa Fe
            29 March 2014 20: 23
            0
            Guards RKR Tymoshenko
            1. Kars
              Kars 29 March 2014 20: 27
              +3
              maybe Timoshenko. By the way, I have not yet been interested in where our frigates tried to build. Is it not in the Crimea?

              and so I copied the statement here, this campaign is a prophecy about Ukraine.

              Participants of the Maidan, being dissatisfied with the consequences of the Maidan, went to the Maidan.
              Maidan leaders opposed the Maidan and immediately arrested several participants in the Maidan for organizing the Maidan. However, soon all the participants of the Maidan against the Maidan were released for services on the Maidan.


              sat down vi))) request
              1. Santa Fe
                29 March 2014 20: 45
                0
                Did you read a poem about Dr. Vyrvibok?

                enemies from the stomach - tra-ta-ta
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 29 March 2014 20: 43
            +2
            all this is a circus. whole world - theater all people bl ..
            it’s just that these de-generators at first staged (for once) a war between Orthodox Russia and Orthodox Georgia now they are not enough. that on the other side.
            before that, the Orthodox with the Orthodox only Serbs and Bulgarians thrashed in 1913
            so what happened then?
  • AlexA
    AlexA April 1 2014 13: 12
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Those. do you think the Prince was better protected than the Italian Zara? (I'm not talking about the late Americans - "Baltimore" and "Cleveland")

    The issue of security is not in the thickness of the armor, but in the results. I will simply repeat one of the commentators: a ship that has withstood two nuclear attacks cannot be called poorly protected.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 1 2014 19: 33
      0
      At some distance, the shock wave from a nuclear explosion can cause more damage to an armored ship than to an unarmored one, because it will tear off armor plates from fasteners and drive them into the hull, destroying the bulkhead.
      The lack of booking (in general - incorrect) of modern warships was greatly influenced by torpedo weapons (non-contact, an explosion under the bottom). Especially rocket and torpedo.
      The most important cargoes in 1982 were transported by the United Kingdom on Soviet transports located at the time of the beginning of the Anglo-Argentine conflict in English ports and voluntarily forcibly chartered by the British. The hulls were unarmored, only communications and the most critical posts.
  • AlexA
    AlexA April 2 2014 09: 29
    0
    By the way, Eugen and his sisterships are really handsome. Then I found a photo in the archive. In the German naval memorial in Labeux (near Kiel) a screw from Eugen is installed. Directly with a piece of shaft. I don’t know how they cut it off in Kwajalein, but the cut marks are clearly visible.
    The impression is indescribable. This is technical perfection itself. Admire.
    And Kassandra - respect. I copied all your posts about Eugen. I myself am a big fan of German engineering. But from your notes I learned a lot. Thank you.
  • Santa Fe
    April 9 2014 14: 30
    0
    Quote: Kassandra
    By ballistic start do you mean what?

    Flight without aerodynamic forces
    Quote: Kassandra
    Start the tomahawks with battleships see ...


    Quote: Kassandra
    From TA submarines, do the tomahawks also start ballistically?

    The TA lid opens, the hydraulic ejection system of the KR is activated, and the rocket is ejected from the capsule. The latter is ejected from the TA pipe some time after the launch of the rocket. The missile is connected with a halyard container with a length of 12m, at break of which (through 5 from the passage of the underwater section of the trajectory), the protection stage is removed and the starting solid propellant rocket is activated. As the water column passes, the pressure inside the KR case decreases to normal (atmospheric), and it leaves the water surface at an angle of 50 °.

    KR goes to a height of 300-400m. Then, on the descending branch of the launch section with a length of about 4km, the wing consoles open, the air intake extends, the solid propellant rocket is fired off with pyro-bolts, the main engine is turned on, and the aircraft moves to the desired flight path (via 60с after the launch).

    starts like a regular shell, without wings
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 10 2014 08: 16
      0
      from a battleship and not from a destroyer, the tomahawk starts "shaking its tail" like this (watch from 0:15 to 0:35 sec):

      Soviet obliquely start much more polly, look. 0:25 to 0:32 sec

      can find better video
      like underwater youtube in real life probably does not see.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 10 2014 20: 23
        0
        Quote: Kassandra
        the tomahawk starts from the battleship and not from the destroyer

        So, what is next?
        start from inclined guides, PU Mk.143

        ANN translates the rocket into vertical flight for climb. Why - we discussed, the first minute it flies like a shell, without the participation of a lifting aerodynamic force
        Quote: Kassandra
        Soviet slanted start much more

        You're talking about the start of the 5-ton fool on 0: 27 - she has huge wings opened, and then there is not enough lifting force, the booster takes her to a height so that she does not crash into the water while gaining speed
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 10 2014 22: 37
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          So, what is next?


          Well, there is a video above, not a photo ... then what you asked "how do they start shaking their tail".
          ANN doesn’t translate anything, ANN makes sure that the place gets where you need to. from her command to go only when the rocket after the start begins to lie on course.
          tomahawks and at the same height at which the tail is shaking can go, then it is more difficult to detect. the initial departure to a high altitude is not detected.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You're talking about the start of the 5-ton fool at 0:27 - she has huge wings spread,

          this "fool" will be smarter than a tomahawk
          in the control panel, the RCC did not disclose anything.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          a booster takes her to a height so that she doesn't crash

          And what should it be taken away for this purpose if the screen effect just disappears there?
          goes to a height she only if she fly far
          further, it also slows down at a target from a low altitude with no less acceleration, it is braked to such a speed that it can safely and in a controlled way plop into the water

          the tomahawk, picking up speed at an inclined start, shakes its tail so that it doesn’t flop out of the lack of lifting power, while the Soviet anti-ship missiles are still opening the wing for this.
          a comparison of the two videos shows that the Soviet start much more positive. nothing interferes also much more positively and in a controlled manner from a low height it is inhibited.
          1. Santa Fe
            April 10 2014 23: 15
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            then what you asked "how do they start shaking their tail"

            What does this have to do with your fantastic PLUR?
            Quote: Kassandra
            ANN doesn’t translate anything

            gyroscopes
            Quote: Kassandra
            in the control panel, the RCC did not disclose anything.

            their wing opened immediately upon exiting the PU. But the trajectory did not work too gently - the video clearly shows how it is gaining a height of a couple of hundred meters. Otherwise, nothing. At this moment, the lift of the wing is ~ 0, F = mg, and it will collapse into the water
            Quote: Kassandra
            screen effect?

            Forget about him
            To do this, you need a flight height of less than half the wing moves
            Quote: Kassandra
            slows down with no less acceleration slows down

            Will have to drag the ballast in the form of a brake booster weighing a couple of tons

            however, I noticed you this problem does not bother
            Quote: Kassandra
            there are small lifting checkers in the region of the center of mass.

            don't fantasize

            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 11 2014 12: 04
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              What does this have to do with your fantastic PLUR?

              why "fantastic" and why "PLur"?
              you can certainly bang it on the submarine.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              gyroscopes

              what are gyros? they just spin and do not tumble. if mechanical. move only progressively. and the rest of the rocket, "tumbling" around them.
              ANN is not responsible for what you wrote above. autopilot is responsible for this.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              it is gaining a height of a couple of hundred meters.

              then it gains even greater height if it does not follow a low-altitude trajectory.
              minimum flight altitude tomahawk 5 meters.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              At this moment, the wing lift is ~ 0, F = mg,

              therefore, so as not to fall into the water, the tomahawk lowers the tail so compensating for the lack of lifting force on the hull and on the wing as part of the thrust of its engine.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Forget about him
              This requires a flight height of less than half the wing chord

              from it the maximum effect at such a height.
              because of it happens planes can’t land
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZL0x-gEDM8



              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Will have to drag the ballast in the form of a brake booster weighing a couple of tons

              somehow it is not necessary. it is necessary to brake much less weight than to start and not only retro rockets (aka brake booster) are involved in the braking. at the start - only a booster.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              don't fantasize

              Yes, do not "fantasize", but find a video or the same photo as your side view, only yourself. torches from them are not at all large, they work only for a couple of seconds.
              they began to be installed in order to reduce the difference in the axes of the RCC lift-up accelerator (there are two of them in your photo) and the RCC itself.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 10 2014 23: 12
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          translates a rocket into vertical flight for climb. Why - we discussed, the first minute it flies like a shell, without the participation of a lifting aerodynamic force

          if you suddenly do not understand the tomahawk with an inclined start, then on the first video (here it is again)
          youtube.com/watch?v=8Eevs2IL7y8
          you can see that nowhere it is in vertical flight to fly like a projectile, it temporarily becomes almost like a dolphin on its tail after leaving the launcher for a couple of seconds, then "leaning forward" goes almost at the same height as the mast
          tomahawks start obliquely and vertically in completely different ways.
          1. Santa Fe
            April 10 2014 23: 37
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            upon exiting the PU, for a couple of seconds, it becomes almost like a dolphin on its tail, then "obliquely falling into

            The main thing is that there is no aerodynamics
            Quote: Kassandra
            goes almost at the same height as the mast

            He goes beyond the clouds))

            When the booster thrust ends, the trajectory becomes ballistic. On the descending branch of the launching section, the consoles open and the air intake of the marching turbojet engine is extended and the KR goes into aerodynamic mode. At this point, the speed of the CD is close to the sound
            Quote: Kassandra
            tomahawks start obliquely and vertically in completely different ways.

            Same in one pattern

            The only difference is that after starting from an inclined launcher, you have to change the trajectory and go into vertical flight, with a sharp climb
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 11 2014 12: 27
              +1
              the main thing is that the video of the tomahawk launches from the Missouri was not just a vertical start, but an inclined one, and it did not go beyond any clouds with it.
              difference in everything.
              did you even watch the video? only honestly & belay

              with the Americans, since only the harpoon started vertically in your photo.
              vertical start began to be applied because of vertical PU


              granites (without shaking their tail) start obliquely from the ship so that the trajectory with the one in your photo has nothing to do (0:18) and it doesn’t leave for any clouds like those linkor tomahafki:


              granites start vertically trying not to climb to the height (one checker pushes out of the PU, the second smaller one in the nose of the rocket deploys it as it gathers speed horizontally)
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 13 2014 11: 02
    -1
    Cassandra, it turns out I’m not alone in your troll attacks! laughing
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 15 2014 06: 50
      0
      you, too, cannot distinguish a direct smoky trace from a parabola, and a vertical start from an inclined start?