Military Review

Artillery armament of heavy cruisers of post-war projects 82 and 66

37
Artillery armament of heavy cruisers of post-war projects 82 and 66

It would look like a heavy cruiser project 82



On May 15, the People's Commissar for the Navy of the USSR approved the tactical design task for the design of the heavy cruiser of the 1941 project. He was conceived as a multipurpose ship that must fight with cruisers, including heavy ones, maintain their light forces, put up active minefields, suppress coastal batteries of medium caliber, act on enemy communications. In the event of an unspecified displacement, the new cruiser should carry eight 82-mm guns, twelve 203-mm stabilized anti-aircraft guns, twelve 100-mm automata, two three-tube torpedo tubes, four reconnaissance aircraft; have a maximum speed of at least 37 knots and a cruising range of 36 miles at a speed of 10000 knots. Reservations were chosen on the basis of impenetrability of the board, the beam and the conning tower of a 20-mm projectile at a distance of more than 203 kb, and the decks - 60-kg bombs.


305-mm tower installation CM-31 on the cruiser 82 Ave.


The very first studies of the project showed that the displacement of such a ship would be 25 tons! It is quite natural that the main caliber (000 mm) seemed insufficient for such a large ship. Further consideration of pr. 203 was interrupted by the Great Patriotic War. In 82, the development of projects for ships of various classes began, taking into account the experience of conducting military operations, including the project 1943. After specifying the tasks and clarifying the characteristics of the ship, the caliber of its main artillery was increased to 82 mm. In 220, there was another consideration of the operational-tactical assignment for Project 1947, already with the participation of the government. As a result, it was decided to arm the new ship with 82-mm artillery. It was with this main caliber that the tactical and technical assignment was approved on August 305, 31. It was necessary to build the same Project 1948 cruiser (see details >>>), but only at a new quality level.


305-mm tower installation CM-31 on the cruiser 82 Ave.


31 December 1951 in Nikolaev laid the lead ship of the Stalingrad series, in September 1952 in Leningrad the Moscow, and a month later in Molotovsk (now Severodvinsk) the third ship. The descent of the lead ship was scheduled for the November holidays of 1953, but in April, due to the death of I. V. Stalin, all work on the 82 cruisers was stopped, and then they were dismantled at the stocks. True, the citadel of "Stalingrad" in 1954 was lowered into the water to conduct field tests of the durability of the structure and new models weapons. In 1956 – 1957 the compartment was hit by cruise missiles, aerial bombs, torpedoes and remained afloat, although, naturally, no struggle for survivability was conducted on it (!). But this did not prevent him from concluding that with the advent of cruise missiles, the traditional scheme of constructive protection is unpromising.



According to the approved project, cruisers of the Stalingrad type had to have three SM-31 turrets with three 305 mm guns with a barrel length of 61 caliber as the main caliber. These towers (like the guns themselves) had a large mass compared to the towers of the MK-15 cruisers of the Kronstadt type with 305 mm B-50 guns. The projectile of the new gun was 4 kg lighter, but at an initial speed of 950 m / s it was thrown at a distance of 290 kb, which is 30 kb more than the B-50 guns. At the same time, at a distance of 150 kb, the new gun pierced horizontal armor 312 mm thick (B-50 - 280 mm), and horizontal 73 mm thick (B-50 - 88). It is clear that such firing ranges should be provided with firing control devices and sources of detection and target designation. On this, the advantages of "Stalingrad" (in relation to "Kronstadt") end: shipborne detection equipment, and even more so fire control of that time, could not provide firing at distances of more than 135 kb, and aviation armament on cruiser pr.82 was not provided *. In addition, at distances of more than 200 kb, the natural dispersion of shells is very large. So, for getting one shell into the cruiser at a distance of 210 kb, about 125 shells would be needed (the ammunition on the ship is 720 shells), at a distance of 120 kb it would be about 13, while about 20 hits are needed to disable an enemy cruiser.

* It can be assumed that if these ships entered into service, they would be one of the first to get helicopters into service, which could solve the problem of detecting and adjusting fire beyond the visible horizon.


The offensive capabilities of the heavy cruiser 82 Ave. in comparison with the US Navy cruiser "Alaska"


Such large distances are usually realized when shooting at coastal areal targets. With regard to sea targets, the ability to further throw a projectile only characterizes the best ballistics of the gun, which at equal distances, other things being equal, would provide a greater likelihood of a projectile hit the target, that is, at a selected combat distance, the cruiser 82 will quickly reach the required number of hits.

Thus, it can be assumed that with the entry into service of heavy ships of the “Stalingrad” type, the Soviet Navy would have received a powerful, fairly well-balanced artillery ship, completely “competitive” to the American large cruiser Alaska. It should be noted, and the best security "Stalingrad." Although the rest of the ships would have been almost equivalent (the speed advantage of the Soviet cruiser on the 3 bonds, as the experience of the war showed, would not have significant significance).

But it is unlikely that "Stalingrad" would have found application "by specialty" in the military actions of the first half of the 1950-s. By the time of its entry into service, “Alaska” was already in reserve, from where it went for cutting.

Even before the decision on arming the ships of Project 82 305-mm artillery was approved, the question arose again about the need to create a cruiser easier and cheaper than the future Stalingrad. After all, the latter was supposed to be used independently or as a flagship of the main forces fleet at sea, but a mass ship was needed to give combat stability to various naval forces in the sea from possible attacks by light and heavy enemy cruisers. In practice, it was a question of an analogue of one of the intermediate versions of the project cruisers pr.82 with 220-mm artillery, the development of which was carried out as far back as 1945.







The pre-sketch design of such a cruiser LKR-22 (light cruiser with 220-mm artillery) provided for the creation of a ship that, with a full displacement of 23 500 t, had to carry nine 220-mm guns, to have a main armor belt 90 mm thick, to develop the 35 knots. But the removal of NN Kuznetsov, the People's Commissar of the Navy (the initiator of the creation of such a cruiser) in 1947, led to the cessation of all work on it.
Only a few years passed, and the idea of ​​a cruiser with 220-mm artillery again captures the minds of the naval leadership, but now JV Stalin becomes its initiator at the beginning of 1951, and a year later NG Kuznetsov returned from reference presented a pre-sketch project of the new ship (project 66).

The main feature of the cruiser pr.66 became the artillery of the main caliber. Its three-gun 220-mm artillery towers, the CM-6, began to be designed in 1945 for the cruisers of the 82 Ave., then they were planned to be installed on the cruiser 22 and, finally, on the new cruiser of the 66 Ave. A gun with a barrel length 65 of calibers, shot at the ground in 1954, threw 176-kg projectile at a distance of 260 KB at the calculated rate of fire of 4 – 5 shots / min.

The main mission of the ships of the 66 Avenue was to be the fight against cruisers, including armed 203-mm artillery, the last representative of which was the American heavy cruiser Des Moines, which entered service after the war, armed with automated 203-mm artillery units with rate of fire, twice the calculated for the CM-6.

The mass of the American projectile was only 152 kg, and the firing range did not exceed 150 kb, but at the real distance of the battle (less than 130 kb), the Soviet "heavy cruiser fighter" could be a victim. If we consider the Des Moines 203-mm main armor belt, we can say that the 66 cruiser certainly could not “successfully hit all ships of its class,” as N. G. Kuznetsov wanted. This was confirmed by a research tactical game conducted in 1954, which showed that the cruiser 66 Ave could not with impunity destroy enemy heavy cruisers with 203-mm artillery built after the end of the Second World War. The views of the country's leadership on the role and place of large surface ships have changed - the project of the last Soviet large artillery cruiser was handed over to the archive. This time forever!
Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. AARP
    AARP April 12 2014 08: 32
    0
    It is a pity that our fleet could not get such ships.
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. April 12 2014 10: 12
      +1
      Quote: AARP
      It is a pity that our fleet could not get such ships.

      Khrushchev would still cut into scrap metal.
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic April 15 2014 11: 44
        +1
        Have you seen at least one modern large artillery ship?
        Our first switched to missile cruisers. In this case, missiles are preferable (the range is greater, the accuracy is higher and the warhead is greater). Remember Eilat. Here Khrushch was right (this statement does not apply to all aircraft). These cruisers would be outdated in 5-10 years, and they would cost a lot of money.
  2. Bosk
    Bosk April 12 2014 11: 04
    +6
    The fact that I don’t argue that handsome ships, but let’s say we built them and what would we do with them? We must not forget that in those days the very scheme of military operations in the event of war meant conducting basic military operations only in Europe against NATO countries and the Navy (surface) in this role was assigned a cover (supply) from the flanks, because all the funds mainly went to aviation, ground and missile forces, and for the construction and maintenance of such ships the funds needed are not small ... so it turned out how it turned out.
    1. Morgan
      Morgan April 14 2014 22: 43
      0
      Right. It should be remembered that the 'Alaska' was considered by the Amers to be the most useless ship. What operational purpose would pr82 have? They didn't build a 'white elephant' and thank God.
      PS But without AVU remained because of Khrushchev. Sad ...
  3. barbiturate
    barbiturate April 12 2014 12: 20
    +5
    such ships, in the modern fleet, being sufficiently mastered and supported by other types of ships, could break the face of any enemy without aviation, and against aviation, accompanied by other ships, it would be possible to hold out for a long time and most importantly, such a ship perfectly solves that problem, which our fleet is now practically unable to solve - a powerful action along the coast and enemy ground forces. If, for example, the Japanese troops land on the Kuril Islands, how can our Pacific Fleet help our border guards? Rallies on ships? And such a ship, could mix expeditionary forces with the ground and shit and withstand the numerous hits of missiles and shells without loss of combat capability or with partial loss.
    1. Morgan
      Morgan April 14 2014 22: 48
      0
      Yapov must be preempted and drowned at the transition, and not allowed to land and land. If you do not have time to isolate them from the sea and let the ground forces clear them. Something like this:-)
  4. Kapdva
    Kapdva April 12 2014 12: 27
    +4
    The construction of these ships was supervised by I.V. Stalin himself. His words: ... We have nothing to get involved in the battle with the enemy’s heavy cruisers. The main task of a heavy cruiser should be different - the fight against light enemy cruisers. It is necessary to increase its speed to 35 knots so that it induces panic in the enemy’s light cruisers, disperses them and smashes them. This cruiser must fly like a swallow, be a pirate, a real bandit. He must escape from the attack of heavy enemy ships ... Book Vasiliev A., Morin A. Stalin’s superlinkors. “Soviet Union”, “Kronstadt”, “Stalingrad”. In general, our Leader showed an extraordinary awareness in shipbuilding, a lot has been written about this. You can argue a lot for and against, BUT - the Iowa mattress mattresses are still on the move. And the DESO includes the OKOP (detachment of fire support ships), so something like that ... They would definitely not be superfluous.
    1. vova1973
      vova1973 April 12 2014 15: 22
      +1
      they have another 15 aircraft carriers. And many many resources after the 2nd World War
  5. mongoose
    mongoose April 12 2014 12: 33
    -3
    by the way, 40 years before that, ships of this class were being built in Ingushetia, the best example of the damage that the Jewish revolution inflicted and could not lead to, the "rotten tsarist regime" was building, but the Bolsheviks could not
    battleships and battlecruisers
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 12 2014 12: 51
      0
      the first minus went, but as a matter of fact, as always, you can’t argue because I'm right
      1. Artem1967
        Artem1967 April 12 2014 14: 47
        +7
        I didn’t set a minus, but there is something to object to.
        Each ship should correspond to its time, the country's capabilities in the ability to build and, most importantly, contain not just a set of ships, but a balanced fleet. Only under the condition of balance, the fleet will become a striking tool of the state in the hands of experienced naval commanders.
        The USSR steadily restored its naval power between the Civil and Second World Wars. New types of minesweepers, submarines, destroyers, leaders, and light cruisers were created and put into operation. The excellent battleships Sovetsky Soyuz and heavy cruisers were laid down. The war prevented the completion of the construction, due to which, naturally, priority was given to the ground forces and aviation. I have no doubt that if it were not for the war, both battleships and heavy cruisers would have been completed and the USSR would have received a perfectly balanced fleet. Aircraft carriers? It is unlikely that they are relevant in the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Sea of ​​Japan during the continental war. So Stalin had reasons not to build aircraft carriers.
        The fleet of tsarist Russia before the First World War consisted mainly of obsolete ships. Excellent destroyers of the "Novik" class (for the claim of the head) and the battleships "Sevastopol" entered service already during the war. There was a catastrophic shortage of minesweepers and light cruisers. The fleet was not balanced, the newest battleships in the Baltic were actually in the war and did not participate due to the high mine danger and lack of will of the king.
        It is not enough to build separate outstanding ships. It is necessary to ensure their effective combat operation, which is possible only with a balanced fleet, a good basing and supply system. Tsarist Russia did not have all this, and Stalin steadily created it. Unfortunately, not everyone had time before the war.
        Thanks to the author for a great article. Please continue to cover naval issues. This is our common story!
        1. mongoose
          mongoose April 12 2014 14: 56
          -2
          I say that February, and especially October 17, and the Russian genocide unleashed by the Jews, is guilty and deprived the country of the opportunity to build ships of this class, for after looting during the days of war communism (they exported grain to the German masters (including from the reserve warehouses of the Volga region, minus five million Russian lives) machines, rolling stock, and that's not counting gold). By 1927, the USSR had industry, according to various estimates, from 14 to 16% of the RI industry in 13, and the industry, restored by monstrous methods, from the time of industrialization, only in terms of basic parameters (industrial production, and not stupidly low-quality steel and cast iron) reached the level of RI for various indicators to the years 1913-1916
          Yes, industrialization was necessary, otherwise Guderian tanks would have stopped in the fall of 41 years in the Urals.
          but first to the bottom, and then ..
          both there and there with Russian blood and national poverty, but it was clear what for with IVS it was clear why, and before that? for the sake of the Jewish aristocracy? all of these brackets, blanks, and other rosenfelds? their golden swiss bills?
          1. Artem1967
            Artem1967 April 12 2014 16: 46
            +5
            You are fixated on the Jews, friend! The world is much more complicated and not everything is explained by their "intrigues". Good luck in everything!
            1. mongoose
              mongoose April 12 2014 16: 59
              -3
              yes, yes, I’ve heard it somewhere, there are no Jews, and they didn’t organize a grand genocide
        2. goose
          goose April 14 2014 14: 37
          0
          Russian battleships are very specific ships, rather resembling high-speed artillery barges to support the TsMAP and shelling the coast.
          It seems to me that on the new cruisers the artillery and speed were not balanced. The artillery should have been done more moderately, the shell was heavier. Limit speed to 32 knots to lay the ship at 15000 tons. then 9 ships would come out instead of 3.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. 52
    52 April 12 2014 12: 51
    +5
    Quote: Capdwa
    The construction of these ships was supervised by I.V. Stalin himself. His words: ... We have nothing to get involved in the battle with the enemy’s heavy cruisers. The main task of a heavy cruiser should be different - the fight against light enemy cruisers. It is necessary to increase its speed to 35 knots so that it induces panic in the enemy’s light cruisers, disperses them and smashes them. This cruiser must fly like a swallow, be a pirate, a real bandit. He must escape from the attack of heavy enemy ships ... Book Vasiliev A., Morin A. Stalin’s superlinkors. “Soviet Union”, “Kronstadt”, “Stalingrad”. In general, our Leader showed an extraordinary awareness in shipbuilding, a lot has been written about this. You can argue a lot for and against, BUT - the Iowa mattress mattresses are still on the move. And the DESO includes the OKOP (detachment of fire support ships), so something like that ... They would definitely not be superfluous.

    Yes, not on the go, they are already. And the decision to shred these beauties (I do not laugh) was quite logical. Well, the USSR did not have aircraft carriers, and without AUG it is nothing more than an excellent target. And TsU helicopters would not help because they would just be shot down. Going under water is the only correct asymmetric answer in those conditions.
    1. Kapdva
      Kapdva April 12 2014 17: 34
      +4
      What Iowa wrote off, I know. Walking almost 70 years is the result. Now about the cruisers. As an officer who served on landing ships and thinking something about it, I can say that since the 60s there has been a HUGE problem in the formation of detachments of fire support ships ! You won't shoot cruise missiles at the trenches and bunkers on the shore. It's expensive. And the max. Caliber is 152mm. True, there was also a Vyborg monster with its 254 mm (but this is a dinosaur), so even 50 and 56 were shoved with their 100 and 130 mm guns. Yes, and not so many of them were there. Therefore, they were forced to put MS-73 on the BDK ( marine analogue of the city). That's just the Americans worked on the shore for weeks before landing. And the MS-73 with its 10 km is a shotgun. When you go to the landing and start shooting, you have 15-20 minutes to prepare for artillery. By the way. The BDKs are the only ships where weapons relied on the entire crew. That is why the lack of art ships felt very good. Although for any sailor who read the TR and the Navy, I did not discover America.
  7. Spstas1
    Spstas1 April 12 2014 13: 00
    +3
    I want to express my deep gratitude to the writer Sergei Anisimov who "revived" the Soviet battleships in his talented book "Variant" BIS ". You can argue for a long time about the operational and tactical conventions in which these ships operate in the book. The world of" Variant "is conditional. But the writer was able to invest in the work is that "magnetism" that makes you re-read the book. And no small merit in this is the squadron of the Soviet Navy operating in the book.
    I want to note that now there is a tendency towards the development of cannon artillery in the fleet, a gradual increase in the caliber of guns is noted. Perhaps this is due to the successes in the Radio-electronic struggle. For example, during the Falklands Conflict, attacking the cruiser "Admiral Belgrano", the commander of the nuclear submarine "Conqueror", choosing between the ultra-modern guided torpedoes Mk.24 and the good old Mk.8 of the Second World War, Redford-Brown chose the latter and made the right decision. Why is this example given here - modern avionics can now neutralize the guidance heads of attacking missiles. But can they stop the projectiles flying at the target? The question is ... the US is keeping its battleships safe. I think that the history of "big guns" is not over yet.
    1. goose
      goose April 14 2014 14: 44
      0
      Ended - 4 bombs of 1500 kg from 2 aircraft - and there is no battleship. There is little point in such a reservation. Artillery - yes, still relevant. But do not think that a 406-mm shell is much cheaper than a rocket, and the initial cost of the artillery system is large.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 12 2014 13: 02
    +2
    These ships could be a very serious enemy of the German Kriegsmarine if they appeared on time. In the post-war period, when the carrier carriers of the West became the main opponents, these cruisers no longer represented any combat value. But they could become very expensive targets. So here Khrushchev acted very far-sighted. We must not forget that he made decisions on these cruisers on the basis of the then Minister of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. And these were quite respected people before and during and after Khrushchev. And the means saved on these cruisers were spent on more important things i.e. to create the nuclear missile potential of the USSR, which has become and remains a decisive factor in deterring the West and maintaining a fragile, but peace.
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 12 2014 13: 24
      -1
      I want to remind after the Second World, the same Americans were in no hurry to write off all ships of similar classes
      1. Artem1967
        Artem1967 April 12 2014 14: 59
        0
        They did it right. A rich country can afford it. In conditions of weak resistance, in the presence of modern communication and fire control devices, battleships are formidable destroyers of coastal objects.
      2. gregor6549
        gregor6549 April 12 2014 17: 55
        +2
        Why would they write off what was already. Unreasonable. Therefore, what they could, they modernized what they couldn’t, put on conservation, but they didn’t build new similar mastodons, focusing on the creation of more advanced vessels, which subsequently formed the basis of their AUGs and on the development of the corresponding infrastructure (naval bases, shipyards and t. ground airfields for naval aviation, etc.
        Moreover, in Pearl Harbor, they gave their battleships and heavy cruisers to the Japanese, but took care to remove their aircraft carriers from under attack. As a result, they got a good reason for entering the war, and they managed to save the funds that ensured their victory in that war.
        Well, the fact that they killed a couple of three thousand of their citizens, so who, when and where did they count these thousands?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. goose
          goose April 14 2014 14: 47
          +1
          Nobody gave battleships, and AB went to the exercises, and purely by chance did not drown in the harbor.
          But they could not stop the Japanese from dropping further troops on Oahu and the rest of Hawaii. It just seemed good to the Japanese, but there weren’t enough tankers for long maneuvers.
    2. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank April 13 2014 20: 06
      +1
      In my opinion, the general dismantling of ships on slipways from the same opera as corn on all fields of the USSR. Voluntarism is one word.
  9. mongoose
    mongoose April 12 2014 13: 33
    +1
    By the way I forgot to thank, thanks for the article
  10. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 12 2014 14: 46
    0
    Such ships were no longer needed at that time. Already at the beginning of the 60-ies the first nuclear ships and ships with missile weapons appeared. That's what you had to do, and not create typical WWII ships. They have already outlived their own.
    As Churchill said about the Project 68 cruiser, "beautiful petals of a long-withered rose."
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 12 2014 15: 01
      -3
      to remind when they wrote off the last Iowa?
      By the way, the presence of at least the "Ishmaels" ditched by the Bolsheviks would greatly facilitate the route of the northern convoys of Lend-Lease
      1. Bosk
        Bosk April 12 2014 15: 35
        +1
        If the Ishmaels were converted into aircraft carriers, at least in the escort version as anti-submarine, it would have helped, but as battleships, they could not do anything with submarines and the example of Yamato with aircraft, otherwise they are better armored .. so if they were in service today, the missile warheads would have a more penetrating property, and again we would have what we would have ... The fact that Iowa was left ... well, they didn't leave the whole fleet They are rich guys they can afford to experiment. again, she did not go on hikes very often either ... so they made the appropriate conclusions.
        1. mongoose
          mongoose April 12 2014 15: 40
          -2
          But how are opponents to pocket battleships? oh how many nerves they battered the British and convoys
          1. Bosk
            Bosk April 12 2014 17: 34
            0
            The only thing "Admiral Spee" frayed on my nerves, and then we must not forget that in the very first battle he received more than 20 hits and, having spent more than half of the ammunition, was destroyed by his crew, and "Luttsov" and "Scheer" were not really the same during the war. did not distinguish themselves and were eventually destroyed by aviation.
            1. mongoose
              mongoose April 12 2014 18: 28
              -4
              and? and how much did the British hold against him? one information that he went to sea made the guard of PQ18 washed away
            2. Alex
              Alex 8 July 2014 18: 01
              +3
              Quote: Bosk
              The only thing "Admiral Spee" frayed on my nerves, and then we must not forget that in the very first battle he received more than 20 hits and, having spent more than half of the ammunition, was destroyed by his crew
              Well, in your opinion, it somehow looks a little different. "Spee" was destroyed by the crew not during the battle or immediately after it, but already in Montevideo. Heavy damage to the ship is more of a follow-up, but how Exeter got to the Falklands is truly a miracle. “Ajax” with “Achilles” also got mother, don't worry. And such a sad end for the Germans is solely on the conscience of Captain Lansdorf, who, by virtue of his biography and combat service, built the battle in a destroyer style, and not in a battleship style (a heavy cruiser, and even of this class, is not the ship that should rely on maneuver, not firepower). This, of course, is my IMHO, based on the opinions of more competent researchers.

              Heavy cruisers of the "Deutschland" class did not have the task of participating in major naval battles (such were not yet planned by the Germans at that time, so they were in the heads of the admirals), but were planned to be used as raiders, which Scheer demonstrated quite successfully.
      2. Alf
        Alf April 13 2014 02: 31
        +1
        And how would that help? A battlecruiser is a ship that has a reservation sacrificed to speed and weapons. At almost the same speed with the battleship, when meeting with him, the LC will not be destroyed (and he will not be able to break away due to the approximate equality of course, as well as for the task of guarding the caravan), it will be given so much that there is no question of any escorting will go. As the experience of fighting in the Pacific showed, it was the American and Japanese light cruisers, and, slightly worse, heavy ones, that proved to be the best when escorting caravans.
        1. goose
          goose April 14 2014 14: 52
          0
          But where are you going to develop 35 nodes? On the lake? In the Gulf of Finland? For me, it would be better if the contours for seaworthiness were developed, but the reliability of the power plant at the expense of maximum speed, and the size of the cars would be reduced. You look - and the boat would have fallen in price by 25%.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. mongoose
          mongoose April 15 2014 20: 27
          -1
          um, you are not in the subject, compare the characteristics, there were no victims
  11. mongoose
    mongoose April 12 2014 15: 39
    0
    Battle cruiser Izmail

    Countries whose flag served: Russian Empire
    Year deducted from the fleet: 1932
    Displacement (surface / underwater): 32500 tons
    Dimensions:
    length - 223,85
    width - 30.5
    draft - 8.81
    Speed: 27.5 Knots
    Crew: 1645 people

    After Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Navy Ministry began to revise the development strategy of the navy. Inspired by how easily Japanese squadrons covered the head of Russian squadrons in Tsushima and the Yellow Sea, the authors of the project of the third generation of dreadnoughts relied on speed and firepower, thereby creating the domestic concept of a battlecruiser.
    Line cruisers were to be used as part of a high-speed detachment of the main forces in a squadron battle. They were assigned the role of a freely maneuvering force capable of carrying out deep tactical reconnaissance and covering the head of the enemy squadron. By a decree of October 23, 1907, the Council of Ministers introduced the "Regulations on the composition and division of the fleet," according to which the "operational-capable squadron" of the Russian fleet was to consist of eight battleships, four armored ships, nine light cruisers and 36 destroyers. The task of creating such a squadron was put forward as a priority in the project “Programs for the Development of the Naval Armed Forces of Russia for 1909-1919” developed by the Naval General Staff

    http://www.nashflot.ru/page/imperia/linkreisizmail/3
  12. Kapdva
    Kapdva April 12 2014 17: 34
    +1
    What Iowa wrote off, I know. Walking almost 70 years is the result. Now about the cruisers. As an officer who served on landing ships and thinking something about it, I can say that since the 60s there has been a HUGE problem in the formation of detachments of fire support ships ! You won't shoot cruise missiles at the trenches and bunkers on the shore. It's expensive. And the max. Caliber is 152mm. True, there was also a Vyborg monster with its 254 mm (but this is a dinosaur), so even 50 and 56 were shoved with their 100 and 130 mm guns. Yes, and not so many of them were there. Therefore, they were forced to put MS-73 on the BDK ( marine analogue of the city). That's just the Americans worked on the shore for weeks before landing. And the MS-73 with its 10 km is a shotgun. When you go to the landing and start shooting, you have 15-20 minutes to prepare for artillery. By the way. The BDKs are the only ships where weapons relied on the entire crew. That is why the lack of art ships felt very good. Although for any sailor who read the TR and the Navy, I did not discover America.
  13. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 12 2014 19: 26
    +2
    For the post-war 40s, the burden of building such monsters was clearly unbearable. So it’s for the better that the resources have been directed to more modest NKs and submarines. There was more benefit from them in the 50s.
  14. Alf
    Alf April 13 2014 02: 02
    +1
    Quote: mongoose
    one information that he went to sea made the guard of PQ18 washed away

    By that time, Churchill was asleep and saw how to interrupt supplies to the USSR, and here the Germans gave such a wonderful occasion. Not a single British admiral, nor a naval minister deigned to inform the USSR that the cover was removed from the convoy. As a result, the convoy was defeated, and Churchill cut off supplies to the USSR at a time when we really needed help. Do not forget that it was at this time that the Battle of Stalingrad was going on, in which everything hung in the balance.
  15. Alf
    Alf April 13 2014 02: 22
    0
    Quote: Capdwa
    what Iowa wrote off, I know. Walking almost 70 years is the result. Now about the cruisers. As an officer who served on landing ships and thinking something about it, I can say that since the 60s there has been a HUGE problem in the formation of fire support ships ! You won't shoot cruise missiles at the trenches and bunkers on the shore. It's expensive. And the max. Caliber is 152mm. True, there was also a Vyborg monster with its 254 mm (but this is a dinosaur), so even 50 and 56 were shoved with their 100 and 130 mm guns. Yes, and not so many of them were there. Therefore, they were forced to put MS-73 on the BDK ( marine analogue of the city). That's just the Americans worked on the shore for weeks before landing. And the MS-73 with its 10 km is a shotgun. When you go to the landing and start shooting, you have 15-20 minutes to prepare for artillery. By the way. The BDKs are the only ships where weapons relied on the entire crew. That is why the lack of art ships felt very good. Although for any sailor who read the TR and the Navy, I did not discover America.

    Once again I came to the conclusion that so far not a single fleet of the world has a specialized support ship for landing operations along the coast.
    I see such a ship. Artillery weapons-203-mm howitzers, i.e. guns with different projectile flight paths, capable of firing both directly on the coastal strip and at a range of up to 40 km. Also, the ship should have MLRS systems and 120-mm mortars. All guns should be of land standard, to facilitate supply from army depots. As a defense system, a dozen gatling.
    Booking it must be very strong, both due to the thickness of the armor, and due to the use of mounted armor. Also, the deck should be very well armored. The speed can be limited to 20 knots; he has no one to chase. His task is to get as close to the shore as possible and, supporting the landing force with fire, endure enemy shelling. The opportunity should also be realized, in case of damage, to land on the ground without losing combat efficiency and continue the battle, i.e., if such a ship is created, then, in fact, a revival of the class of monitors will take place, but at a qualitatively different level.
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan April 13 2014 04: 38
      +1
      then 152mm is better for complete unification.
    2. Bosk
      Bosk April 13 2014 09: 13
      0
      If I’m not mistaken, according to the idea, the landing support role was played both by the landing ships themselves (respectively, the equipped ones) escort ships and the aircraft covering the landing operation, and for special support ships ... the Americans remember something wise and came to the conclusion that there aviation copes better, and at one time they worked quite a bit on the shore ...
    3. goose
      goose April 14 2014 15: 01
      0
      There are also options for mortars of extreme calibres with sufficient range. But it’s easier, more caliber, cheaper.
      Gauges 203 and 152 are quite universal.
      For example, Tulip, -
      http://topwar.ru/1008-samoxodnyj-minomet-2s4-tyulpan.html
      weight 27 tons
      caliber 240 mm
      range 19 km
      projectile weight about 130 kg.
      variable charge.
      I think the shore will not be happy with the barge with 4 such dinosaurs.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  16. Alf
    Alf April 14 2014 04: 29
    0
    Quote: Bosk
    If I’m not mistaken, according to the idea, the landing support role was played both by the landing ships themselves (respectively, the equipped ones) escort ships and the aircraft covering the landing operation, and for special support ships ... the Americans remember something wise and came to the conclusion that there aviation copes better, and at one time they worked quite a bit on the shore ...

    Not certainly in that way. Landing ships do not have reservations and they are very fraught to approach close to the shore for fire support. In addition, these ships lack armament capable of conducting mounted fire. And to use an aircraft carrier in this capacity is, firstly, very expensive, and secondly, it resembles firing sparrows from a cannon. A special ship of the type I proposed is smaller in size and, accordingly, less likely to hit, and much cheaper.
  17. Morgan
    Morgan April 14 2014 22: 55
    0
    Thanks to the author - weighted info, correct, +!
  18. Cossacks
    Cossacks April 15 2014 07: 49
    0
    The naval powers built ships of the type of heavy cruiser, the battleship, proceeding from the principle of investing in peacetime, in order to avoid military losses, which, by any means, will be much greater. This is a question about the usefulness or non-usefulness of this class. Nowadays, this is also relevant.
  19. Tishka
    Tishka 4 March 2015 17: 07
    0
    Very interesting article, thanks to the author! Refusal of the reservation, I consider it a mistake, for the simple reason that I saw photos on this site. what happened to the ship of the American Navy, after that. how he was rammed by a wooden boat, with 100 kilograms of TNT, turning the side. And it’s good that they managed to pick it up so as not to drown. And armored landing support ships. really needed. it’s too expensive to shoot rockets in the trenches, or on the landing, which took a bridgehead on the shore. a projectile of a large caliber costs less and acts more efficiently, even frighteningly, than an incoming rocket. There was an interesting article, by one specialist, who showed on calculations and diagrams that even the most minimal booking of the building. when a rocket hits at a certain angle. not only does not lead to its detonation, but also causes a rebound. Yes, and most anti-ship missiles are not designed to break through armor, and have fragmentation filling. so very bad. that these ships were never commissioned.
  20. Tishka
    Tishka 5 March 2015 01: 25
    0
    Very interesting article, thanks to the author! Refusal of the reservation, I consider it a mistake, for the simple reason that I saw photos on this site. what happened to the ship of the American Navy, after that. how he was rammed by a wooden boat, with 100 kilograms of TNT, turning the side. And it’s good that they managed to pick it up so as not to drown. And armored landing support ships. really needed. it’s too expensive to shoot rockets in the trenches, or on the landing, which took a bridgehead on the shore. a projectile of a large caliber costs less and acts more efficiently, even frighteningly, than an incoming rocket. There was an interesting article, by one specialist, who showed on calculations and diagrams that even the most minimal booking of the building. when a rocket hits at a certain angle. not only does not lead to its detonation, but also causes a rebound. Yes, and most anti-ship missiles are not designed to break through armor, and have fragmentation filling. so very bad. that these ships were never commissioned.