Military Review

Loss as an integrating indicator of security

95

Life is the highest value to which all other values ​​are subject.

A. Einstein


Prologue

According to the European Commission, on average, human life is estimated at 3 million euros. The most valuable is the life of a male child - growing up, the little man will be able to produce a large amount of material benefits necessary for the reproduction of the next generations. Of course, the number of 3 million is arbitrary. Human life is not a market commodity, and the idea of ​​its value is necessary only when calculating the amounts of insurance compensations and when assessing the need to take additional security measures.

Unfortunately, life is not priceless: our whole история - This is a series of continuous wars. And yet, every soldier and sailor, traveling to distant shores, believes that he is lucky and he can return home alive.

The greatest interest is the protection of warships - places of mass gathering of people, where a large number of combustible and explosive substances interspersed with critical equipment is concentrated in a confined space. Its failure can cause the death of the entire crew.

In unison with the demand for the preservation of human lives, the problem of the security of the ship itself sounds: after all, where the fragile human body could survive, all expensive instruments and mechanisms would remain. As a result, a radical reduction in the cost of subsequent repairs and an increase in the combat stability of the ship. Even receiving serious combat damage, he will be able to continue the task. Depending on the situation, it will save an even greater number of human lives and, possibly, will ensure victory in the war.

Tsushima phenomenon

According to ship engineer VP. Kostenko, the squadron battleship "Eagle" received 150 hits with Japanese shells of various calibers during the battle. It is worth considering that the engineer Kostenko (the author of remarkable memoirs “On the Orel” in Tsushima ”) hardly had the opportunity one night before handing over the battleship to carefully examine each compartment - his data, for the most part, are recorded in captivity according to other crew members . As a result, Kostenko’s memoirs featured a series of horrible scenes describing the results of hitting different parts of the ship, but there is no exact damage pattern indicating the locations of each of the 150 mentioned shells.

Loss as an integrating indicator of security


Foreign sources provide more realistic damage estimates. So a direct participant in the Tsushima battle, a British officer, William Pekinham (was an observer on board the battleship Asahi), later counted 76 hits in the Eagle, incl. five hits with 12-inch shells; eleven 8 and 10 inch shells; thirty-nine hits with 6-inch shells and 21 with small-caliber shells. According to this data and the photos taken, an atlas of damage to the Eagle for the British Navy was later compiled.

The world was impressed with the results of the Tsushima battlefield - one of the largest naval battles of the era of armor and steam. In practice, the correctness (or erroneousness) of certain concepts and technical solutions was confirmed. The Eagle was particularly striking - the only one of the five newest EBRs of the 2 Pacific Pacific Squadron, which managed to survive the rout. Such "rarities" have never fallen into the hands of naval specialists. The Eagle became a unique exhibit, demonstrating the enormous vitality of large armored ships, the forerunners of the era of dreadnoughts, alive.



Three hours under heavy fire! There is no living space left on the ship.

On the spardek and on the surface decks, chaos was formed from the wreckage of steel, plucked light bulkheads and broken pieces of equipment. Interdeck ladders were almost everywhere demolished, as they were swept away and twisted by explosions of high-explosive shells. For communication between the decks it was necessary to use the holes formed in the decks, lowering the cable ends and pre-prepared ladders in them.


But the terrible evidence of "meetings" with 113-kg "blanks" flying at two speeds of sound:

An 8-inch projectile struck armor above the gun port of the aft casemate. Its fragments smashed the port cover, and the armor in the place of impact instantly heated and melted, forming steel icicles.

In the stern casemate on the left side, an 8-inch projectile blasted into the semiport and burst upon impact into the cannon of the cannon was thrown from the base of the cannon. The entire servant of the gun was disabled, and the commander of the dungeon, Ensign Kalmyks, disappeared without a trace. Apparently, he was thrown overboard through the gun port.




Even more damage was caused by 12-inch Japanese "suitcases" with shimozy (the mass of the projectile - 386 kg).

The 12-inch projectile hit the front corner of the casemate armor of the left side, loosened the thin trim and made a huge gap in the mess-room level with the battery deck. But the casemate armor 3 inches thick and 2-inch deck survived the explosion without damage.


Another hit!

From shaking all the objects fixed on the bulkheads flew off, and the tools flew out of the cabinets and scattered around the deck. A man in the workshop twice overturned his head.


Two 12-inch projectile hit the bow compartment on the battery deck, which housed the cabin of the conductors. The entire right front clump was torn out; it fell overboard with all the fixings.


(It is difficult to verify this information - perhaps the damage described was caused by hits of 8 or 10-inch shells).

Despite such a fierce fire, the battleship continued to fight in full force. Destruction on the spardek did not affect the performance of cars, boilers and steering devices. The EBR has fully maintained the course and controllability. There was no serious damage in the underwater part: the risk of overturning due to loss of stability was minimized. As before, the right cannon of the forward turret of the Civil Code operated, using manual feed of ammunition. On the starboard side was one of the 6-inch towers, another aft 6-inch left-side tower retained its limited functionality.



And yet the "Eagle" was not an immortal hero.

By the end of the day, he had almost completely exhausted his ability to resist: armor plates were loosened by numerous shells hit. All the food was engulfed in flames: bulkheads deformed from strong heating, thick smoke covered the battleship, forcing the servants to leave the GK aft tower. By that time, the stern tower had completely fired its ammunition, and the glass of the fire control devices were so smoked that the system was out of order. In the lower rooms there was a strong smoke, which hampered the work of the machine team. On the decks, 300 was strolling in tons of water that had accumulated there during fire fighting.

The second such battle could not be sustained by the EB. But he was still heading for Vladivostok, confidently moving under its own power! Losses among his crew were 25 people killed ...

Total 25 people? But how? After all, the "Eagle" was literally riddled with enemy shells!

In death agony tremble body,
The thunder of guns, and the noise, and the walls,
And the ship is swept by the sea of ​​fire
It is time to say goodbye.

Such desperate pictures of the sea battle draws the imagination while sounding the song “Varyag”! How does this fit the story of the beaten "Eagle"?

No match. The Eagle is a battleship, the Varyag is an armored deck cruiser, where the deck crew and gunners worked on the open deck under enemy fire (by the way, in that battle during Chemulpo, the Varyag’s irretrievable losses were 37 people. In less than one hour and much lower density of enemy fire).

25 MAN ... Unthinkable!

What was the strength of the battleship crew?

On board the "Eagle" was about 900 sailors. Thus, the irretrievable loss was less than 3% of the crew size! And this is at the then level of development of medicine. Nowadays, many of those 25 unhappy ones could probably be saved.

And what was the number of wounded? V. Kofman names in his monograph the number of 98 people who received injuries of varying degrees of severity.

Despite dozens of hits and brutal injuries of the battleship, the main part of the EBR Eagle team got off in a fright after the battle. The reason is clear: they were UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE BOOKING.

... thanks to the work of the bilge-fire division, commanded by midshipman Karpov. He harbored people under the armor deck, while he himself ran out for reconnaissance and called up the division only in case of serious fires.


Michman Karpov did everything right. People do not need to once again protrude from under the armor. Risk is a noble cause, but not in a sea battle, where there is an “exchange” of supersonic blanks weighing several centners.

Why, then, did the rest of the Eagle sisterships die?



EDB "Prince Suvorov": not a single man escaped from his crew (except for the squadron headquarters; the senior officers left the burning battleship in advance and moved to the "Violent" destroyer).
EDB "Alexander III": died with his crew.
EDB "Borodino": from 866, a man of his team was raised from the water just one sailor - martyr Semyon Yushchyn.

The answer is simple - these ships got even more hits with Japanese shells (estimated - more than 200). As a result, they completely lost their stability, overturned and sank. However, the Prince Suvorov, torn by explosives, stubbornly did not want to sink, and to the last one fought back from the aft three-inch. The Japanese had to plant four more torpedoes into it, which caused critical destruction in the underwater part of the battleship.

As the practice of naval battles of the first half of the twentieth century showed, at that moment when the armored monster fell on board in exhaustion, and the rooms on its upper decks turned into solid ruins, as a rule, the 2 / 3 teams were still alive and healthy. Armor protection until the end of its mission.

Most of the sailors from the crews of the sunken battleships did not die under a hail of Japanese shells. Heroes drowned in the cold waves of the Tsushima Strait, when their ships went to the bottom.

Other Russian battleships who survived the Tsushima defeat were subjected to less fire impact from the enemy, but also demonstrated surprising security:

Old Emperor Nikolai I (1891): 5 dead, 35 injured (from the crew of 600 + people!).
Sisoy the Great (1896): 13 dead, 53 injured.
Little Battleship Admiral General Apraksin (1899): 2 dead, 10 injured.


The flagship of Admiral Togo battleship "Mikasa", Yokosuka.





Mikasa, battery deck with 3 'guns

These conclusions are precisely confirmed by the data of the opposite side. The Japanese honestly admitted that their flagship battleship "Mikasa" was mercilessly beaten in the Tsushima battle - 40 of Russian shells hit itincluding ten 12-inch blanks. Of course, this was too little to sink such a powerful ship. The irretrievable loss of the crew "Mikasy" have made 8 people. Another 105 sailors were injured.

The security of these monsters is simply amazing.

Heroes of our time

Flew a century. What heights have shipbuilders achieved today? The latest technology has allowed to turn ships into unsinkable fortresses, whose security can be envied by the heroes of bygone eras!



Guided missile destroyer weapons Sheffield. Burned out and sank from an unexploded rocket stuck in it. The victims of the fire were 20 people (with the number of 287 crews in people and the availability of modern fire extinguishing equipment and personal protection - heat-resistant suits made of Nomex material).



Frigate with guided missile "Stark". He was attacked by two small-sized RCCs, one of which did not explode. The rockets "flashed" the tin board of the frigate and flew in triumph into the cockpit of the personnel. The result is 37 dead, 31 injured. Sailors of the battleship "Eagle" would be very surprised by this state of affairs.

If all of the above coffins were somehow justified by the imperfection of their design (synthetic interior decoration, superstructure made of aluminum-magnesium alloys), then our next hero bravely struggled with his best security among all modern ships. The main structural material of the hull and superstructure is steel. Local booking using 130 tons of Kevlar. Aluminum "armor" plates 25 mm thick covering the ammunition cellars and the destroyer's combat information center. Automated systems of struggle for survivability, protection against weapons of mass destruction ... Not a ship, but a fairy tale!



The real security of destroyers of the Orly Burk type was demonstrated by the incident with the destroyer Cole. A pair of Arab ragplains on a felucca worth $ 300 have easily knocked out the newest super ship worth $ 1,5 billion. Close NAVIGATING explosion 200 kg of explosives smashed the engine room, turning the destroyer into a fixed target overnight. The blast wave literally “burned” Cole diagonally, destroying all the mechanisms and premises of the personnel on his way. The destroyer completely lost combat effectiveness, the victims of the attack were 17 American sailors. Another 39 were urgently evacuated to a military hospital in Germany. A single blast disabled the 1 / 6 part of the team!

These are the “heights” achieved by modern shipbuilders, turning their masterpieces into mass graves. In the case of the first fire contact with the enemy, these terribly expensive, but flimsy ships are guaranteed to carry most of their crew to the bottom.

Epilogue

The discussion on the need for armor has repeatedly been raised on the pages of the Military Review. Let me quote only three general points:

1. Nowadays, it is not necessary to install too thick armor, which was used on battleships and dreadnoughts in the early twentieth century. The most common of modern anti-ship weapons (Exochet, Harpoon) have negligible armor penetration compared to large-caliber shells of the Russian-Japanese war.

2. By additional costs it is possible to create an anti-ship weapon capable of overcoming any armor. But the size and cost of such a weapon will negatively affect its mass character - the number of missiles and the number of their possible carriers will decrease, their number in one salvo will decrease. That will greatly facilitate the life of the ship's anti-aircraft gunners, increasing their chances of fighting off using active means of self-defense.

3. Broken armor does not guarantee success. The system of isolated compartments with armored bulkheads, equipment duplication and distribution, together with modern systems for survivability, will help to avoid the simultaneous failure of all important systems. Thereby maintaining the combat capability of the ship in full or in part.

And of course, armor will save human lives. Which are priceless.

Based on:
"On the" Eagle "in Tsushima", V.P. Kostenko.
“Tsushima: analysis against facts”, V. Kofman.
http://tsushima.su
Author:
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 April 14 2014 09: 33
    +8
    But the size and cost of such weapons will negatively affect its mass - the number of missiles and the number of possible carriers will be reduced
    Oleg, the creation of a PRK with a tandem warhead is much cheaper than covering the entire ship with any layer of armor. The game is not worth the candle, unlike the creation of active ship defense systems. As for the isolated compartments, you are right, but in my opinion this is already used. hi
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 14 2014 12: 34
      +2
      I kind of think the ship is not a tank. On the ship it is much easier to make spaced armor, against which tandem ammunition will work a little better than nothing.
      1. postman
        postman April 14 2014 15: 33
        0
        Quote: ar-ren
        On a ship it’s much easier to make spaced armor,

        the ship’s hull is already 40% of the cost, a very metal-intensive product.
        if you make an armored belt out of "spaced" armor, it will fabulously expensive
        1. Santa Fe
          April 14 2014 16: 02
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          ship hull and so is 40% of the cost

          Nothing like that

          You yourself posted a table and mentioned someone Mr. Deniski - only a couple of hundred hundred million dollars (Burke) at the final cost of the ship 1,5-2 billion.
          1. postman
            postman April 14 2014 16: 42
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Mr. Deniski - only a couple of hundred million dollars (Burke) p

            ?
            When did I say that?
            equal to ≈ $ 500 million, i.e. a little over a third of the total cost of the ship.

            Aegis - its value is approximately $ 300 million
            a couple of millions (five to six hundred million), just 30-40% of the cost.
            Note Burke (bucket) is not LINCOR, you ARMOR BELOW BECOME THE COST.
    2. Santa Fe
      April 14 2014 14: 38
      +3
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Oleg, the creation of a PRK with a tandem warhead is much cheaper

      Mass will dramatically exceed a ton
      the number of carriers and the number of missiles in a salvo will be reduced

      And by the way, today there are no such PCRs. But there are Harpoons (7000 pieces) and Chinese Yinji
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 14 2014 17: 05
        +2
        and battleships do not exist request
    3. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 14 2014 15: 25
      0
      Absolutely agree. Oleg (to the author), why not consider the sailing fleet? 300-gun frigates? hi I wonder if the pirate feluga will survive the hit of one modern RCC? There is a tree, there is no diesel fuel. No bulkheads from AMG. The sail burns, but let's say it is removed.
    4. postman
      postman April 14 2014 15: 32
      +2
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      the creation of a PRK with a tandem warhead is much cheaper

      1. and what can a "tandem warhead" (leading and main charges) give to penetrate the armor plate? only weaken the armor penetration?
      Note: on ships there is no (and it’s unlikely to be, maybe because of the influence of an external factor) external layer of protection (well, except for screens that also will not give anything).
      2. Any increase in warhead mass leads either to a decrease in range (while maintaining the RCC mass — it (range) doesn’t reach it anyway)) or to an increase in mass, which increases:
      -Dimensions (PC and Pu ALL change)
      -start booster
      -in essence, the development of a new RCC
      3.the very armor piercing for anti-ship missiles, a complex problem caused by anti-ship missile devices (seeker, "soft" cone), everything is very "tender" and "thin-walled, at the limit, everything is squeezed out, the fight is for kilograms. TARU, then the rocket" carries with it "
      4. The speeds (as a rule) are much less, compared to the projectile, there is no question about 2M (or the range will decrease)
  2. Serg65
    Serg65 April 14 2014 10: 37
    +5
    Dear Oleg, I respect your addiction to naval armor, but remember the fate of the glorious cruiser Krasny Kavkaz ... "On November 12, 1952, upon completion of tests of the Kometa missile system (KS-1 on Tu-4K ), the cruise missile being tested was equipped with a warhead. As a result of the missile hit, the ship broke into two parts, which sank in less than 3 minutes. Estimated place of death of the ship: 15 miles south of Cape Chauda, ​​Feodosiya Bay area. " And this is at 76 mm. armor !!
    1. NOMADE
      NOMADE April 14 2014 10: 53
      +4
      So, Oleg also indicated that the use of armor to protect against "light" anti-ship missiles, of which recently, appeared - a lot. "Comet" is quite large and heavy, if I am not mistaken, then this is in fact a MIG-9. There are very few large, supersonic anti-ship missiles and in a limited number of countries, they are expensive, as a result, there are fewer of them. Used for their intended purpose, they will be more likely in the event of World War 3, and not in "local" conflicts.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 April 14 2014 11: 54
        +3
        Quote: NOMADE
        So, Oleg also indicated that the use of armor to protect against "light" anti-ship missiles, of which recently, appeared - a lot. "Comet" is quite large and heavy, if I am not mistaken, then this is in fact a MIG-9. There are very few large, supersonic anti-ship missiles and in a limited number of countries, they are expensive, as a result, there are fewer of them. Used for their intended purpose, they will be more likely in the event of World War 3, and not in "local" conflicts.


        Dear Vladimir, well, do not divide us the fleet into a detachment of ships for local wars and a flotilla for squadron battles! I completely agree with Artem1967, the active defense of the ship should develop, in the struggle of armor and shell, in recent times the latter has been winning the championship often soldier
        1. NOMADE
          NOMADE April 14 2014 12: 55
          +3
          ) You can, without "respected", otherwise you drive me into paint. ;) And if on the topic, then I will repeat that there should be a "golden mean". Armor and active protection systems. If the shell won the armor by 100%, then there would be no tanks ... but there would be, "ala BMP" only with an active protection system and the main weapon. As you can see, this is not happening. In addition to improving armor and weapons, tanks receive active protection systems and powerful avionics. Also, earlier, Oleg Kaptsov, cited calculations that the main cost of the ship, this radio electronic equipment, energy system, weapons and the cost of booking, will increase the cost by 10 - 20%. But this will save the ship from "minor" explosions, the crew and the material part of the ship will survive.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 April 14 2014 14: 55
            +6
            Vladimir, unfortunately, a ship is not a tank, an artillery battle between ships is a fun of bygone days, active defense is more effective to combat anti-ship missiles. Regarding the "not big" explosions ... in the case of Sheffield, you need to trust the work of your radar, and not check its work visually considering yourself the smartest, in the case of Cole, the watch must be carried as expected, and not with a Coca-Cola rod while drinking ! Regarding the armor, I partly agree with Oleg, but if this armor is at least 150 mm., Having such an armor belt, we can already talk about a certain unsinkability (the fate of the citadel of the cruiser "Stalingrad" is an example of this), but with such a reservation the displacement will be go off scale. As a result, the fate of the new battleships will repeat the fate of the Ganguts, there are battleships, but it’s scary to lose them, very expensive toys.
            1. NOMADE
              NOMADE April 14 2014 15: 23
              +2
              I partially agree with you. But bringing the armor belt and decks to 150 mm is too much, you yourself noted it. But it is rather rash to give away the "electronics", all the protection of the ship. I understand that a ship, a priori, is not a tank. But the approach to defense is somewhat similar. Ask the tankers and the infantry how it is more comfortable and confident:
              1) light, splinterproof armor .., "ala GTS", but with a powerful system of "active protection"
              2) a good, armored platform, with active protection.
              I think that almost everyone will choose option -2. This is partly confirmed by the active development of heavy delivery vehicles (Israel TBTR, and our attempts).
              This approach, which should be in the Navy, is my personal opinion.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 April 21 2014 11: 15
                +3
                Okay, let's add up all the pros and cons, we have a stronghold, which is not bad in itself. The citadel may (with the current means of destruction, it is "possible") will save many sailors and officers, and this is a big plus! the defeat of anti-ship missiles and projectiles of antennas of detection and fire control systems instantly turns a modern combat ship into a cruise liner. The coordinate difference between a ship and a tank is the distance between the opposing sides; a ship without weapon detection and control systems in modern combat has no chance of surviving hi
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 21 2014 12: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  the defeat of anti-ship missiles and shells by the antenna systems for detecting and controlling fire in an instant turns a modern warship into

                  You overstate
                  To launch the same anti-ship missiles, Caliber / Tomahawks, anti-submarine missiles or firing a cannon at targets beyond the horizon (Zamvolt) - radars are NOT NEEDED
                  Let everyone break them - the ship will only get angry, shoot its own ammunition at the enemy and go for repair
                  Quote: Serg65
                  ship without weapon detection and control systems in modern combat

                  Modern naval combat (such as the Falklands) is not Tsushima.
                  There is always a chance to evacuate a damaged ship or remove it from the "first line" (of course, if it survived the first attack, and did not burn up from one unexploded anti-ship missile)
                  Quote: Serg65
                  save many sailors and officers life and this is a big plus!

                  It is much more important that this will preserve the ship itself - its high-tech expensive "stuffing"

                  Pete that the cost of installing armor is negligible against the cost of the stuffing that she has to cover
                  1. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker April 21 2014 12: 13
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Pete that the cost of installing armor is negligible against the cost of the stuffing that she has to cover

                    The picture shows a "piece" of the Control Room (CPU) of the engine room. For especially American Americans - the poster "Feet Off Console" - they didn't throw sandals on the console ... laughing
                    1. Santa Fe
                      April 21 2014 12: 30
                      0
                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      The picture shows a "piece" of the Control Room (CPU) of the engine room

                      Yes, it says Propulsion
                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      For especially American Americans - the "Feet Off Console" poster - they didn't throw sandals on the console ..

                      Funny))))
                      You + for your attention good
                      1. stalkerwalker
                        stalkerwalker April 21 2014 12: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes, it says Propulsion

                        Well ... to be precise - Propulsion and Aux - auxiliary engine - Main EC and auxiliary (usually a parking diesel generator).
                        All control panels are the same - unification-s laughing
            2. Santa Fe
              April 14 2014 15: 30
              +2
              Quote: Serg65
              but with such a reservation, the displacement will be off scale

              To read off scale for what mark?
              Quote: Serg65
              but losing them is scary, very expensive toys.

              Wow
              And isn’t it scary to lose the 2 billionth Burke from a felucca with a bag of TNT?
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 April 21 2014 11: 42
                +3
                Oleg, you must admit, when booking the same Burke at least in 70 mm., Its displacement will increase somewhere up to 8 500 tone, so that with such a displacement to give the same 31,5 node, you need a GSU in 130 000 hp., With such a GSU, so as not to get at the cruising range, it is necessary to increase the capacity of fuel tanks, this entails an increase in the length of the order of 20 meters, which also entails an increase in tonnage. Regarding the felucca with TNT, this is an inconspicuous, but not fast target, with a well-established monitoring and warning service, the felucca is not an dangerous target soldier
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 21 2014 12: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  its displacement will increase somewhere up to 8 500 tone, so that with such a displacement to give the same 31,5 node a GSU is needed in 130 000 hp.,

                  stop
                  The relationship between displacement and power requirements of the power plant nonlinear

                  Burke (10 thousand tons) full w / and 100 thousand hp is required
                  The cruiser Baltimore (17 thousand tons) needed 130 thousand hp, moreover, its speed was 32,5 knots.

                  Of course, you can now say that the lion's share of Burke’s power is spent on generator drives. The energy consumption of a modern ship is several times greater than that of its predecessor (one SPY-1 radar consumes 6 MW). And really, Burke’s movement is consumed ... no more than 75 thousand hp

                  One could argue that the four modern LM2500 gas turbines are not very similar to the eight old Babcock and Wilksos boilers. The mass of the power plant of old Baltimore was prohibitive - nowadays, the freed up space and load reserve can be successfully used to install an additional power plant

                  So the need to increase the power of the power plant is a weak argument. With an increase in I / O, it increases insignificantly (despite the fact that the modern ship no longer needs the speed 31,5 knots.)
                  Quote: Serg65
                  with a well-established monitoring and notification service

                  it never happens in life
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 14 2014 12: 44
        +4
        Quote: NOMADE
        So, Oleg indicated that the use of armor to protect against "light" anti-ship missiles

        The USSR Navy had its own concept of "light" anti-ship missiles. It meant the Termit anti-ship missile system weighing 2,5 tons. with a warhead weight of 500 kg. But the main warships were equipped with supersonic anti-ship missiles larger than the MiG-9. The same anti-ship missile "Granit" is practically a MiG-21. Or aviation X-22? What kind of armor will help here? By the way, when they write about the X-22, for the sake of effect, they usually lead to the armor effect of its cumulative warhead, how much it burns out there ...
        1. Santa Fe
          April 14 2014 14: 51
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          The same anti-ship missile "Granit" is practically a MiG-21. Or aviation X-22? What kind of armor will help here?

          30-40 centimeter board of Iowa or Yamato will completely protect from Granite

          In this case, the comparison of the Granite with the MiG-21 does not give anything, the fuselage and wings of the rocket simply fall off when they meet with the armor - only warhead (750 kg) goes on. This is clearly seen in the example of air crashes - the plane does not stick into the ground for a dozen meters, it falls apart, the wreckage scatters to the sides. And this is when meeting with much softer earth! And what about armored steel !!!

          + rebound factor (meeting at an angle of 45 and more degrees from the normal)
          + doubts about the strength of Granite warheads designed to defeat unarmored targets

          And perhaps the main thing:
          Quote: NOMADE
          Used for their intended purpose, they will be more likely in the event of World War 3, and not in "local" conflicts.
        2. NOMADE
          NOMADE April 14 2014 15: 03
          0
          Thanks for the information, but I wrote that such "light" (ala Termite, Granite, etc.), only in a few states .. And they are not used in "local" conflicts.
          1. Predator
            Predator April 14 2014 20: 56
            +1
            And if you take Yamato, throw out towers with 460 mm cannons, remove medium and light artifacts and stuff with modern weapons, it will be bad ?!
    2. Santa Fe
      April 14 2014 14: 44
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      And this is with 76 mm. armor !!

      KK was a small old bucket of 1916 year of construction
      Comet probably didn’t even hit the armored belt
      Quote: NOMADE
      "Comet", rather large and heavy,

      starting weight - 2,7 tons
      Warhead - 600 kg!
  3. Artem1967
    Artem1967 April 14 2014 11: 41
    +3
    You can, of course, and book promising destroyers and frigates. Security and combat stability will increase, but at the same time the displacement and price of the ship will increase (and at times). Far from the fact that this is justified. The emphasis should be on the active defense of the ship using layered air defense and electronic warfare.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 14 2014 13: 40
      0
      And why at times?
      If we recall the 68 bis, then the weight of the armor (100 mm) was 22% of the standard displacement. Quite a reasonable approach - enough to protect against light weapons and at the same time "without fanaticism."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 13: 48
        +3
        Quote: Dart2027
        If you recall the 68 bis, then the weight of the armor (100 mm) was 22% of the standard displacement.

        So he didn’t protect from anything
        Only the waterline was covered with armor, any modern missile will pass OVER the armor of the 68 project cruiser. The armored deck, perhaps, will protect the RCC warheads against rupture, but in the first it is still unlikely, and in the second it will protect only the engine room. Booking 68 is good against artillery shells in 6 inches, with a few kilos of explosives, but from anti-ship missiles ...
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 14 2014 14: 06
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          only waterline is covered

          Can you find out the source? I somehow did not hear about such a reservation.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          against artillery shells of 6 inches, with a few kilos of explosives

          And I do not call to build battleships like the Yamato. Another thing is that when:
          "A pair of Arab ragamuffins on a $ 300 felucca simply knocked out the latest $ 1,5 billion supership."
          this is also not to say the least. And if something happens, you have to fight off the coast and, according to the same promising frigate or destroyer, will heel five ordinary shells from self-propelled guns?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 14: 21
            +3
            Quote: Dart2027
            Can you find out the source? I somehow did not hear about such a reservation.

            Check out the 68 bis project cruisers reservation scheme here
            http://www.nnre.ru/tehnicheskie_nauki/udarnye_korabli_chast_1_avianesushie_korab
            li_raketno_artilleriiskie_korabli / p18.php
            In general, the height of the armored belt of our cruisers starting from 26 and according to the 68 project ranged from 3,3-3,5 meters, while part of the armored belt went under water.
            Quote: Dart2027
            "A pair of Arab ragamuffins on a $ 300 felucca simply knocked out the latest $ 1,5 billion supership."
            this is also not to say the least.

            So they drove 200 kg of explosives in TNT equivalent under the side. There is only one recipe - as a certain admiral used to say:
            When I was the chief officer, on Mondays, I personally, for 45 minutes, during drill exercises, trained the commanders of the watch posts according to the principle: "An unfamiliar man with a spear is running - your actions?"

            In general, no need to click was ... a beak.
            By the way, "Eagle" received about 400-500 kg of explosives (but not in TNT, less in TNT), therefore (surprisingly), but the ratio of "the amount of explosives per person killed" in Cole and Eagle is not so strong and different
            Quote: Dart2027
            And if something happens, you have to fight off the coast and, according to the same promising frigate or destroyer, will heel five ordinary shells from self-propelled guns?

            Forgive my French, but do not fuck the frigate or destroyer off the coast, in the reach of self-propelled guns. If we seriously want to land amphibious landings, we need to make a barber barge with 203-mm howitzers, probably ATGMs and Grads in large numbers.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 April 14 2014 16: 08
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              View reservation scheme

              The link does not work.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              An unfamiliar man with a spear is running - your actions

              There is a leisurely girl with a makeup bag - your actions? Of course, you don’t need to click a beak, but shooting without warning is not always convenient.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              expat frigate or destroyer to do near the shore

              Grandiose naval battles are hardly foreseen in the foreseeable future. Nowadays, the fleet is either an instrument of political pressure or a participant in hostilities in third countries. In other words, the likelihood that some "Admiral ..." will fire from a cannon at the base of the Somali pirates is an order of magnitude higher than the probability that he will release all his missiles at some "berk".
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Uberbronded barge with 203 mm howitzers

              And so it is. Landing ships must be armored to the maximum (minimum 200 mm) and equipped with normal artillery. In fact, they should be amphibious tanks, and everything else is secondary.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 16: 15
                +1
                Quote: Dart2027
                The link does not work.

                It works, you just need to copy it to the browser
                Quote: Dart2027
                Of course, you don’t need to click a beak, but shooting without warning is not always convenient.

                Undermining 200 kg of explosives in trotill equivalent at the side of a heavy cruiser or even an armadillo will not go in vain
                Quote: Dart2027
                Grandiose naval battles are hardly foreseen in the foreseeable future. Nowadays, the fleet is either an instrument of political pressure or a participant in hostilities in third countries. In other words, the likelihood that some "Admiral ..." will fire from a cannon at the base of the Somali pirates is an order of magnitude higher than the probability that he will release all his missiles at some "berk".

                Somali pirates have no howitzers.
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 14 2014 16: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Undermining 200 kg of explosives in trotill equivalent at the side of a heavy cruiser or even an armadillo will not go in vain

                  OVER water or UNDER water?))

                  As you know, this is a hint at HMS York
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Somali pirates have no howitzers.

                  Assad has and were at Gaddafi
                2. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 April 14 2014 17: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  need to copy to the browser

                  Yes it is. It turns out that for an acceptable reservation will have to increase to about 40%.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  on board a heavy cruiser or even an armadillo will not pass in vain

                  Of course they won’t work. Armor is not a panacea for all ills, but damage to equipment and human losses will be much lower, and for this it is needed.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Somali pirates have no howitzers

                  And I would not argue that - the Americans have a lot of this good, they will share
          2. Santa Fe
            April 14 2014 14: 57
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027
            A pair of Arab ragged feluccas worth $ 300 without ceremony disabled the latest super ship worth $ 1,5 billion "

            Is it easy?

            To buy a boat, TNT in a concrete mixer to cook - as much as two hundred pounds! There is work for at least a week

            Then the bag is still needed and the outboard motor.
            1. Assistant
              Assistant April 14 2014 21: 13
              0
              Is it easy?


              Oleg, how likely, in your opinion, is the repetition of such an action?
              A significant drawback of asymmetric responses is that they can be used for the first and only time.
              A simple example: Dart2027 asked an interesting question:

              There is a leisurely girl with a makeup bag - your actions?


              May 17, 1987, the Iraqi Mirage F1 aircraft attacks with two Exoset anti-ship missiles, the frigate USS Stark. A little more than a year later, on July 3, 1988, the American cruiser Vincennes is located in the territorial waters of Iran (!), And a passenger plane Airbus A14 takes off from the airport on which the Iranian F-300s could be based (!) !), which conducts a constant radio exchange with dispatchers (!) with a constantly on-board transponder (!). Cruiser crew actions?

              As for the boat with the explosives on board the destroyer: I, of course, have never been a specialist in guerrilla warfare, but how much will it cost to develop and plan such an action, subject to a secrecy regime? How much will it cost to prepare a specialist who can plan such actions and pay for his work? Moreover, each action can be held 1 time.
              In this regard, the question for you is: how realistic do you assess the use of light anti-ship missiles against ships of the US Navy by their modern adversaries, that is, democratized countries?
              1. Santa Fe
                April 15 2014 00: 17
                +2
                Quote: Assistant
                they can be used for the first and only time.

                The next time will be Kassam (shelling the port of Aqaba while the ships of the United States Navy are stationed - 2006 emnip year). and then a suicide boat again. then a shot from a disguised howitzer from the shore. and tons of options

                the Yankees are lucky that no one is fighting seriously with them. everything is limited to small forays of Arab punks - with damage to hundreds of millions.
                Quote: Assistant
                Cruiser crew actions?

                You forgot to take into account that the cruiser at that moment was leading the battle to Iranian boats. crew morale was critical
                Quote: Assistant
                how much will it cost to develop and plan such an action, subject to the secrecy regime? How much will it cost to prepare a specialist who can plan such actions and pay for his work?

                Terrorists fly on private jets only in the movies
                In reality, these are ordinary losers - according to the CIA, they originally planned to attack the destroyer USS The Sullivans, but the boat overloaded with TNT sank halfway to the target (bought too leaky)

                The real action for which extra-class professionals were required was the damage to the British cruiser York during the Second World War. The old cruiser, unlike the American destroyer, had an armored belt and it was useless to simply blow up a felucca at its side

                The Italians had to use a special tactic - reaching the target, the boat was broken in half - a mine was plunged into the water, which was detonated at a depth of 8 meters
                This is the Level!
                Quote: Assistant
                how real do you assess the use of light anti-ship missiles against ships of the US Navy by their modern adversaries, that is, democratized countries?

                Chinese Yinji RCCs are in service with Hezbollah fighters

                Hitting the deck of the Israeli corvette Hanit, 2006
                1. Assistant
                  Assistant April 15 2014 02: 20
                  0
                  then again the suicide boat


                  Can you tell us more about the attack and its results? Or a link? And then all that I found on this issue was an attack on the tanker "Limburg", but what is a battleship and what is a tanker.
                2. Assistant
                  Assistant April 15 2014 03: 32
                  +1
                  In general, if we consider modern American destroyers from the point of view of the damage they received in the last 20 years, then it turns out that they are generally incorrectly constructed. Well, how to fight such Papuans? They have thin armor, instead of which there is a radar capable of tracking satellites. They have weak artillery, instead of which there are cruise missiles of one and a half million dollars each. They have helicopters with acoustic buoys, magnetometers and anti-submarine torpedoes, and they need armored combat support helicopters. Well, the list goes on. That is, to beat from such Papuans as from a cannon to sparrows, and to rake even from
                  In reality, these are ordinary losers

                  can.
                  It feels like all the main types of warships currently used by the United States were designed to withstand some other enemy, with a different style of warfare. Only to what ...
                  I myself really like armored ships from the Second World War and the first post-war years. And if you recall the effectiveness of shelling the Vietnamese coast with an American battleship ... But it seems that ship designers did not become afraid of shells.
                  A simple example: how do you feel about booking the Prince Eugen heavy cruiser? By the way, there was an article about him just a couple of days ago.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    April 15 2014 11: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Assistant
                    modern American destroyers in terms of the damage they received in recent years 20, it turns out that they are generally incorrectly designed

                    Estessno
                    This is the legacy of the cold war.

                    By the way, modern U.S. Navy submarines are designed differently - not against the sea enemy
                    Quote: Assistant
                    and raking even from In reality these are ordinary losers

                    They were raking from everyone - from terrorists, and from Saddam Hussein, and about Iranians
                    Quote: Assistant
                    It feels like all the main types of warships currently used by the United States were designed to withstand some other enemy, with a different style of warfare. Only to what ...

                    USSR Navy
                    Quote: Assistant
                    reservation of the heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen"

                    It was built under the specific conditions of WWII - the armor was "smeared" all over the ship (now this is irrelevant)
        2. Santa Fe
          April 14 2014 15: 03
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          If you recall the 68 bis, the weight of the armor (100 mm) was 22% of the standard displacement.

          Honestly, hard to believe
          The much more heavily protected Baltimore (100-152 mm belt, 76 mm deck, 165 mm barbets and deckhouse) armor weight was 1790 tons - only 15% of the standard w /
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and secondly, it will only protect the machine.

          would you like to protect the chain box?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 18
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Honestly, hard to believe
            The much more heavily protected Baltimore (100-152 mm belt, 76 mm deck, 165 mm barbets and deckhouse) armor weight was 1790 tons

            Firstly, the area of ​​armor plays a huge role, and here few of the cruisers in the world surpassed the Soviet ones. And secondly, do not forget that the weight distribution of different countries does not coincide very much. For example, if sclerosis does not lie to me, the Americans often indicated the mass of deck armor as part of the mass of the hull.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 14 2014 15: 32
              +1
              By the way about the slide? And the angle at 90 degrees will be? Otherwise at a speed below the sound doubt they gnaw me about breaking through a degree different from the right angle
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 43
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                By the way about the slide? And the angle at 90 degrees will be? Otherwise at a speed below the sound doubt they gnaw me about breaking through a degree different from the right angle

                Fritz-X had an EMNIP of up to 280 m / s (transonic) speed, but when hit at an angle close to normal (75 degrees), he rummaged to Roma from top to bottom, including armored decks of 45 mm and 112 mm thickness, a number of bulkheads and constructive underwater protection on the bottom . So, anti-ship missiles with a speed of meters like 220-250 and at an angle in 45 have a good chance of breaking something, but
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 14 2014 15: 45
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Fritz-X had an EMNIP

                  That's when Harpoon will become like Fritz then you can talk.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 50
                    +2
                    The question is solved quite simply - the explosive and the fuse "hide" in a shell-shaped capsule of hardened steel.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 14 2014 18: 26
                      +1
                      Well, moreover, the capsule will probably be radiolucent? Weight will not change? Weight loads. The case is made of millimeter plastic and the nose is heavy made of steel, it is probably wonderful to make a slide.
                      and by the way, their Fritz had a capsule with a thickness of 190-140 mm

                      The weight of explosives in the warhead is reduced. Which also makes the ship pleasant.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 20: 03
                        +2
                        Kars, what are you writing? Here is the rocket. Here is the warhead. Ahead - GOS, behind - BB with a fuse in a shell-shaped capsule.
                        Quote: Kars
                        the case is from millimeter plastic and the nose is heavy from steel, it’s wonderful to do a slide

                        not weighted, within the mass of explosives
                        Quote: Kars
                        The weight of explosives in the warhead is reduced. Which also makes the ship pleasant

                        Compare the reduction in the weight of explosives and the corresponding increase in the number of missiles with an increase in the cost of an armored ship? :)
                      2. Kars
                        Kars April 14 2014 22: 36
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Ahead - GOS, behind - BB with a fuse in a shell-shaped capsule.

                        About the GOS ahead, it will greatly contribute to penetration resistance, and at what angle this capsule capsule collides with the deck, I’m afraid to imagine))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        not weighted, within the mass of explosives

                        That is, explosives in the new armor-piercing missiles will not be? Is it so understood? Steel by the way has a density much higher than explosives)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Compare the reduction in explosive weight and the corresponding increase in the number of missiles

                        What is the increase in quantity? At best, the amount will remain the same, but most likely it will decrease greatly.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        with an increase in the cost of the armored ship? :)

                        Yes, it’s easy, armor compared to modern filling costs a dribble))
                2. tlauicol
                  tlauicol April 14 2014 16: 05
                  0
                  it’s no more difficult than building a new battleship. worth a million. Harpoon and a half million
                  1. Santa Fe
                    April 14 2014 16: 30
                    +2
                    Taurus

                    Subsonic
                    Pure air base
                    Compactness - obviously you won’t start it from UVP: the cross-section of the 1,0 x 0,8 m
                    Starting weight - 1360 kg (like 2 Harpoon)
                    The explosive mass in warheads is 56 kg. Ships like an elephant grains (despite the fact that the ships did not learn to hit)
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol April 14 2014 16: 57
                      0
                      Taurus, yes. I gave as an example the creation of a penetrating warhead. What prevents placing such in RCC? Cheaper than harpoon
                      Weight ? 2-3 pieces fighter raises. If you want container placement (shore, ship)
                      What prevents her from hitting Tirpitz at the dock or the Altenfjord?
                      these 56 kg will explode in the shell cellar - moreover, in the one indicated
                      Want to UVP or underwater launch - take Storm Shadow. Although the air launch is enough for the eyes. Only the lazy does not develop such warheads from China-Pakistan to Europe-America. But battleships have not yet been seen
                    2. postman
                      postman April 14 2014 17: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      I gave as an example the creation of a penetrating warhead. What prevents placing such in RCC? Cheaper than harpoon

                      This "penetrating" at 0,96M (less than 340m / s) WILL NOT PENETRATE ANYWHERE (well, of course, it will probably sew a berk)
                      -In 1944, German designers created a caliber projectile with a drop-down plumage for a 210-mm caliber gun of the K12 (E) super long-range installation. The length of the projectile was 1500 mm, weight 140 kg. At an initial speed of 1850 m / s
                      - need at least 2M
                      ==========
                      And, in order to develop such a speed (at least in the final section of the flight), a lot of fuel is required, which is again WEIGHT and OVERALL DIMENSIONS. Vicious circle
                    3. tlauicol
                      tlauicol April 14 2014 18: 57
                      0
                      The ratio of warhead mass to the cross-sectional area of ​​0,64. The J-1000 warhead at a speed of 300 m / s can penetrate medium-density soil to a depth of 6,1 to 24,4 meters and punch reinforced concrete slabs with a total thickness of 1,2-2,1 meters
                      is this quote about JASSM - also subsonic, warheads are even simpler and easier - will you not get anywhere ???
                    4. postman
                      postman April 15 2014 03: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      - WILL NOT THERE ANYWHERE ???

                      no
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      J-1000 warhead at a speed of 300 m / s can penetrate medium density soil

                      soil - NOT a Bronelist !!
                      Bayonet shovel (not BSL, the same for BSL, but for manure)) Penetrates 30-40 cm into soft soil, even by the puny intellectual. SO WHAT?

                      Take the TCSN-1.8 / 50 Concrete Nailing Gun, there are 50 mm hardened "nails", try to drive into the armor plate
                3. Santa Fe
                  April 14 2014 23: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Cheaper than harpoon

                  ROAD (not even in the RCC version)
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  2-3 pieces fighter raises

                  Only the largest fighter
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  What prevents her from hitting Tirpitz at the dock or the Altenfjord?

                  Far from flying from Iran to Pearl Harbor
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  these 56 kg will explode in the shell cellar - moreover, in the one indicated

                  phenomenal accuracy
                  there would be at least to get into the ship - a moving target, covered by electronic warfare and air defense systems
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Only the lazy does not develop such warheads from China-Pakistan to Europe-America

                  And how are you doing? have many countries adopted such CDs? Have they reached operational readiness? How many pieces are produced?
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  I gave as an example the creation of a penetrating warhead.

                  As you can see, nothing good has come of it - heavy, bulky, very expensive - and therefore rare. Main warhead too weak against ship
                4. tlauicol
                  tlauicol April 15 2014 09: 53
                  +1
                  600 missiles for 570 million euros - compare it yourself
                  a large fighter of more than three. Transport AN, Airbus or Boeing do not even know how much it will drop from the ramp - an option for the Papuans. Like shore-based containers
                  And what, the cruiser will shoot at the Papuans from Pearl Harbor? Or will it come closer?
                  I can call 200 battleships, cruisers, armadillos sunk at the anchor or near the mooring wall
                  Accuracy is truly phenomenal. Taurus also puts interference itself. Destruction of air defense - the same missiles, only with a different filling
                  USA, Korea, Australia, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Britain, France, UAE, Greece, Italy. - And what about success with battleships / cruisers? - Another 7 countries have supersonic missiles
  4. Santa Fe
    April 14 2014 15: 36
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    and here few of the cruisers of the world exceeded the Soviet

    compared with the "Washingtonians"?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Americans often indicated the mass of deck armor as part of the mass of the hull.

    Say what you like - a full w / and 17 thousand tons

    And this despite the number of weapons and outdated technologies!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 48
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      compared with the "Washingtonians"?

      Yes, even with anyone.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Say what you like - a full w / and 17 thousand tons

      So what? I say - there is not much armor there, it covers the waterline and the chassis. Do you want to cover something else - increase the height of the armored belt
      1. Santa Fe
        April 14 2014 16: 18
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, even with anyone.

        It makes sense to compare only with Baltimore
        "Washingtonians" were artificially weakened
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        and here few of the cruisers of the world were superior to the Soviet.

        Have you ever seen the Baltimore reservation scheme?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you want to cover something else - increase the height of the armored belt

        Yes

        Just keep in mind that in this case there will be savings of 800 tons only on the GK towers and their barbettes (+ decrease in ballast - because the towers were located high, OVER the deck)

        How similar are modern gas turbines to eight Babcock and Wilcox boilers? Fuel economy. 2 launch catapults, 12 twin five-inch in 6 towers, anti-aircraft artillery (12 quadruple bofors) will leave. Radars you see how healthy, at what height
        Baltimore’s crew is -1100 people, on a modern ship it will be reduced by 3-5 times, etc.

        As a result of this reserve, it’s enough to cover the board, superstructure, and deck with five-inch armor
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 16: 58
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It makes sense to compare only with Baltimore

          Well, compare who is interfering with something.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Have you ever seen the Baltimore reservation scheme?

          Saw. So what?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Just keep in mind that in this case there will be savings of 800 tons only on the GK towers and their barbettes (+ decrease in ballast - because the towers were located high, OVER the deck)

          Thousands will go away, so one and a half tons, maybe more. And even if only two, but this is a complete limit. But what’s the point of guessing how much will go if we don’t know how much will be added? The weight distribution of modern weapons is unknown.
          At the same time, adding only one armored belt on 100 m pancakes (half the length of Baltimore) with a height of 4 m pulls almost 1000 tons + all weapons with control systems
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          As a result of this reserve, it’s enough to cover the board, superstructure, and deck with five-inch armor

          Nope.
          1. Santa Fe
            April 14 2014 17: 17
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Saw.

            And what did you see there?
            How much does the reservation area exceed 68 bis?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The weight distribution of modern weapons is unknown.

            Come on))
            Which system are you interested in?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And even if only two, but this is the full limit

            How about including armor in a power pack?
            How much can you save on this?

            How much is the mass of the same generator or electric. WWII engine superior to modern designs? (beats power)
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            adding only one armored belt on 100 m, pancakes (half the length of Baltimore) with a height of 4 m pull almost 1000 tons

            exaggerating
            100 on 4 on 0,127 on 7,8 on 2 boards = less than 800 t
            or are you going to make it from osmium?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 17: 34
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And what did you see there?
              How much does the reservation area exceed 68 bis?

              Oleg, you are ... I understand, fuse and all that. Did I say somewhere that the reservation area of ​​Baltimore is less than that of the Soviet cruiser? I wrote
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Firstly, the area of ​​armor plays a huge role, and here few of the cruisers in the world surpassed the Soviet ones.

              Maybe it was superior to Baltimore, I can’t say offhand. Can you remind me of the length of the Baltimore citadel, the height of the armor plates? Compare.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Come on))
              Which system are you interested in?

              Weight of Aegis equipment + UVP with missiles. Only Oleg, not reflections in the style of "And I think it weighs so much" but figures from some source thread
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              How about including armor in a power pack?
              How much can you save on this?

              Almost nothing. How much cladding is there?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              exaggerating
              100 on 4 on 0,127 on 7,8 on 2 boards = less than 800 t

              I wrote about xnumx mm
            2. Santa Fe
              April 14 2014 23: 04
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              few of the cruisers in the world were superior to the Soviet.

              It makes no sense to compare the 68 bis with the Washington - they were artificially weakened. There is only one standard - Baltimore and its followers (Oregon, Demoin)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the length of the Baltimore citadel, the height of the armor plates?

              The main belt was 152 mm thick, at the bottom edge - 102 mm, and covered the engine rooms. In the bow and stern, its thickness decreased to 76 - 52 mm, respectively. (<my note - the bow magazine of ammunition is 140 mm, aft 127 mm>) Starting with the SA-72, the main belt began with 52 frames to cover the radio station, and not from 57. The main armor deck had a thickness of 65 mm, transverse traverses - 127 and 152 mm. The project included a conning tower with an armor thickness of 152 mm, but it was not installed on the first 6 ships. The last ships had a conning tower armor of 165 mm. The total weight of the armor was 1790 tons, or 12,9% of the standard displacement.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Almost nothing. How much cladding is there?

              16 mm
              6 "(152mm) machinery belt tapering to 3" (76mm) backed by 0.625 "(16mm) STS steel - or is it a backing?

              what about stringers and frames? I meant the inclusion of armor in the power pack, in the form of an armored capsule (IL-2)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I wrote about xnumx mm

              152 is redundant. Moreover, it is differentiated. It is possible to allocate a part to a shatterproof bulkhead along the aisles and etc.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              + UVP with missiles

              61-charging Mk.41 - empty 117 tons, with b / c (48 SM-2 and 13 Tomahawk + crane) - 230 tons
              http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

              One Baltimore tower weighed 300 tons without barbets (160 mm)

              Moreover, the central fire-fighting center is located a few meters below the deck, and high above the tower



              About Aegis to look for laziness - and so everything is too obvious. The height of the SPY-1, the weights and dimensions are noticeably less than that of the radar and directors of Baltimore or DeMoyne
              (by the way, at DeMoine, each tower weighed 450 tons, the deck was 90 mm, the course of the 33 node and the crew of 1800 people)
  • nnz226
    nnz226 April 14 2014 12: 01
    +4
    Another small nuance: "Eagle" survived, because its ship engineer, mentioned by Kostenko, applied on the battleship a system developed by Academician Krylov to maintain stability (tables for flooding the compartments opposite to the damaged ones). Therefore, Eagle, unlike its counterparts in series is not capsized !!! If Kostenko's colleagues on the Suvorov, Borodino, Alexander III, in their arrogance of nobility, would not have turned up their sleek faces from the new developments of the brilliant shipbuilder, and the ship commanders were thinking not only about scratched coins, then these battleships could have remained on an even keel and would not have carried their crews into the abyss when capsized. At least, there would have been chances to jump into the water when the ship was sunk on an even keel, and there, you see, the Japanese would have saved someone, as the only sailor from Borodino.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 12: 38
      +2
      Quote: nnz226
      If Kostenko's colleagues on the Suvorov, Borodino, Alexander III, in their arrogance of nobility, would not have turned up their sleek faces from the new developments of the brilliant shipbuilder, and the ship commanders were thinking not only about scratched coins, then these battleships could have remained on an even keel and would not have carried their crews into the abyss when capsized.

      And you, noble sir, before being rude to the heroes who fell in Tsushima, you should at least slightly turn on a critical look and stop taking Kostenko's nonsense as the ultimate truth. This "comrade" was tricked in literally everything, from the number of hits in the Eagle and ending with the supposedly spent "Eagle" ammunition in battle. But back to the EDR type "Borodino"
      Let's start with the fact that the "Eagle", on which Kostenko "heroically" fought for stability, did not have a single penetration of the armor belt and had no underwater holes. The "counterflooding" you are writing about HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED.
      Quote: nnz226
      Therefore, "Eagle", unlike its brothers in the series, did not overturn !!!

      While the "Prince Suvorov", who was damn near under fire, and which obviously had a lot more hits than the "Eagle" died only after he was shot by TORPEDS, and before that the ship was almost constantly on an even keel. The battleship Borodino overturned after (according to eyewitnesses) an explosion of ammunition from the 6-inch turret took place on it (which should have made a huge hole in the underwater part). And only "Alexander" rolled over from the loss of stability.
      1. Walking
        Walking April 14 2014 13: 53
        +1
        "Suvorov", "Alexander", "Borodino", "Eagle" in this sequence they went into battle, the Japanese concentrated the main caliber fire of the entire squadron on the lead ship and knocked them out one by one. “Eagle” was just lucky that the fight ended otherwise he would have shared the fate of the Sister-Spikes.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 12: 10
    +5
    No, it doesn’t roll :))
    These days, the installation of too thick armor is not required, which was used on armadillos and dreadnoughts in the early twentieth century. The most common of modern anti-ship weapons (Exoset, Harpoon) have insignificant armor penetration in comparison with large-caliber shells of the Russian-Japanese war.

    If we consider getting into Russian ships, then it should be remembered that Japanese shells, as a rule, did not even penetrate the 76-mm armor. So this is not an argument.
    At additional costs, it is possible to create anti-ship weapons capable of overcoming any armor. But the size and cost of such weapons will negatively affect its mass

    We just teach RCC to make a slide during an attack. Most RCCs can do this.
    In this case, booking a side is not enough karekotichno - it is also necessary to book a deck. And booking the deck of the same Burke with at least 76-mm armor (which, again, is not enough at all) is about 1000 tons of armor. Board - about the same. Moreover, an ordinary anti-ship missile system, in which the explosive and fuse are covered with an armor-piercing nib, will pass this three-inch sheet like an ax through paper.
    In order to seriously puzzle subsonic anti-ship missiles, you need at least 152-mm armor, but booking it with a berk will require 4000 tons, which will require an increase in displacement, which will require an increase in undercarriage, which will again entail an increase in displacement ... In general, we are approaching 20 kilotons ...
    ... After that gentlemen rocket scientists, instead of doing a "slide up", teach RCC "a slide down" ie diving under water near the ship and defeat of its underwater part.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 14 2014 12: 52
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      ... After that gentlemen rocket scientists, instead of doing a "slide up", teach RCC "a slide down" ie diving under water near the ship and defeat of its underwater part.

      Undoubtedly. The response of manufacturers of anti-ship missiles to the creation of armored ships will definitely be. And it will be much easier for them to do this. Moreover, the add-in cannot be booked as a board, you cannot hide antenna posts under the armored deck, and without them the warship is not a tenant ...
      1. Santa Fe
        April 14 2014 15: 26
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        . And it will be much easier for them to do this.

        What can create armor-piercing anti-ship missiles in the same dimensions?
        Quote: Nayhas
        Moreover, the add-in cannot be booked as a board

        It turns out
        Quote: Nayhas
        You can’t hide antenna posts under an armored deck, and without them a warship is not a tenant ...

        Discussed a hundred times
        launch anti-ship missiles, PLUR and Tomahawk - radars are not required for this
    2. Santa Fe
      April 14 2014 15: 17
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      that Japanese shells, as a rule, didn’t even penetrate the 76-mm armor. So this is not an argument.

      How about 12 'hitting the Fuji Tower? And 10 hits like that on Mikasa?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      approaching 20 kilotons ...

      Baltimore -17 thousand tons - with heavy weapons and technology 70-years ago

      How about including armor in the power pack of the hull, using spaced armor (ceramic filler), a citadel armor scheme?

      extremities are not interested. It is important to keep the hi-tech stuffing


      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      which will require reinforcement of the chassis,

      Not too strong argument - the power consumption of the power plant will increase by no more than a quarter; in the end you can donate a couple of nodes
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "slide down" i.e. diving under water near the ship and defeat of its underwater part.

      The difference in density of media 800 times
      most likely, the wreckage of the anti-ship missiles will ricochet and scratch the paint on board
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And booking the deck of the same Burke with at least 76-mm armor

      And why did you get the idea that the silhouette would look like Burke?

      Are there many decks?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 26
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How about 12 'hitting the Fuji Tower? And 10 hits like that on Mikasa?

        I do not know such Russian armadillos. And if you want to take the statistics of hits / loss of crew for Japanese ships, then it will be much worse, because one Russian shell had more disabled Japanese sailors than one Japanese - Russian
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Baltimore -17 thousand tons - with heavy weapons and technology 70-years ago

        RCC will fall over the citadel and carry everything except the engine room and boiler room. And what's the point?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How about including armor in the power pack of the hull, using spaced armor (ceramic filler), a citadel armor scheme?

        Pottery will be beaten
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is not a very strong argument - the required power of the power plant will increase by no more than a quarter

        Is this with a growth in displacement of one and a half times a minimum?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The difference in density of media 800 times
        most likely, the wreckage of the anti-ship missiles will ricochet and scratch the paint on board

        solely a matter of physics and angle of incidence. We put the explosive and fuse in a shell-like shell, only much thinner, and we make the seeker and the wings of the rocket so that they fall off when they collide with water.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And why did you get the idea that the silhouette would look like Burke?

        Are there many decks?

        Oleg, this victory of technology over common sense turned out to be too expensive even for the USA. Do you also offer to book it?
        1. Santa Fe
          April 14 2014 15: 59
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          one Russian shell accounted for more disabled Japanese sailors

          You can't say that for Mikasa and Fuji
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Pottery will be beaten

          Doesn't fight on tanks
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Is this with a growth in displacement of one and a half times a minimum?

          Compare Burke and Baltimore
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          solely a matter of physics and angle of incidence

          With a standard trajectory on the PMV - a rebound is guaranteed.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          We put the explosive and fuse in a shell-like shell

          exoset will repeat - a hit in the belt at the waterline
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          this technology victory over common sense was too expensive even for the US

          We are not talking about the crazy DBR radar, not about showing off with PVLS and a jet propulsion. AGS is useless - there are easier and cheaper systems (Mk.71). The electric GEM turned out to be too expensive, perversions with stealth, the ship was built almost from scratch - not a single system standardized with the previous Berks. Development took a couple of decades

          And armor has nothing to do with it - as practice shows, armored ships were built in huge series (68-bis, Cleveland) - without any difficulties, despite the low productivity and imperfection of machining technologies

          Prototype (the cost of its construction is also included in the final cost of the bail)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 16: 34
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You can't say that for Mikasa and Fuji

            Oleg, according to Kofman, the Russians got into the armadillos of Togo (all 4) 68 times. 37 people were killed (not counting those who died from their wounds later) 64 shell hit the Eagle. 25 people killed
            http://tsushima.su/RU/libru/i/Page_7/page_18/page_19/Page_32/kofman-analiz/
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Doesn't fight on tanks

            tank is not a ship; ATGM is not anti-ship missiles
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Compare Burke and Baltimore

            Oleg, I’m telling you for the eleventh time, DO NOT compare Burke and Baltimore. If you want to book a board so that you have an 1,5-2 meter of armored belt protruding above the water (like Baltimore), then put up with the fact that you will cover IT exclusively. And the RCC is gouging such a ship together with the crew minus the mechanics. And if you want something else, be so kind as to increase your braid belt another meters so at least up to 4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            With a standard trajectory on the PMV - a rebound is guaranteed.

            Oleg, the question of entering the RCC into the water without a rebound is a fairly simple physical problem :)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And the armor has nothing to do with it.

            Here I am about the same :)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            We are not talking about the crazy DBR radar, not about showing off with PVLS and a jet propulsion.

            We are talking about the fact that with all these bells and whistles, Zamvolt weighs a hell of a lot, and an attempt to book him a board from top to bottom (there are vertical shafts) and even an add-on (there posts) will give the desired 20 kilotons. Well if
            1. Santa Fe
              April 14 2014 23: 38
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              68 times 37 people were killed (not counting those who died from their wounds later) 64 shell hit the Eagle. 25 people killed

              Yes, this is nonsense in vegetable oil. It would make sense to prove something if ten times more sailors died from Russian "armor-piercing" shells than from suitcases with shimosa
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Japanese shells, as a rule, did not even penetrate the 76-mm armor. So this is not an argument.

              Russian punched - and what's the point? An insignificant difference in losses of L / s, which are also insignificant (we are talking about the Eagle and Japanese armadillos)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              ATGM not anti-ship missiles

              But what about BPS
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I’m telling you for the eleventh time, DO NOT compare Burke and Baltimore.

              Andrey, why are you so wound up. We discussed the GEM - the increase in its required power is very small
              Burke - 100 KS Baltimore (1,7 times more) - 120 thousand
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              you cover EXCLUSIVELY EU.

              On a modern ship, each nail will be lighter several times (about this in the next comment). A reserve of several thousand tons - enough for everything
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the question of entering the RCC into the water without a rebound is a fairly simple physical problem :)

              But just not for low-flying Raman at transonic speed
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              We are talking about the fact that with all these bells and whistles, Zamvolt weighs damn how much

              designers prudently abandoned these frills in the future

              DBR Radar - Hat. Hardly better than Europeans with APAR + SMART-L (fits freely on 6 thousand ton frigate)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and add-on

              Gigantic superstructure Zamvolta - the result of amersky jokes with stealth.
              An eurofrigate add-on mounted on the Zamvolt case would look like a flasher on the roof of a Mercedes
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 14 2014 16: 09
        0
        Well this is not a land tank - the ceramic will break - some water bul-bul
        1. Santa Fe
          April 14 2014 16: 31
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          ceramics beat - vodichka bul-bul

          For internal shatterproof bulkheads?
        2. NOMADE
          NOMADE April 14 2014 16: 47
          0
          )) and no one proposes to build a ship's hull from "ceramics". She, only will strengthen the main armor - metal. And the body made of it is not "bul bul") Also, do not forget about the "active protection", which already exists on ships, relatively "long ago" - air defense systems, short-range artillery (we have AK 630, "broadsword", etc.) etc.).
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol April 14 2014 17: 08
            +1
            here they are actively defending and developing - and doing it right
  • Analgin
    Analgin April 14 2014 13: 20
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    We just teach RCC to make a slide during an attack on the target. Most RCC can do this.

    Most? I know about the second: the outdated Termit and the already removed from service modification of the Harpoon. All other anti-ship missiles prefer to go low-low over the waves and hit the side.

    And if you think about it - how to carry out the dive itself? A heavy supersonic missile cannot "quickly dive" on its victim, because there is a great chance of breaking from sharp vertical overloads, which means the whole process of attacking the deck (lifting over the target and diving) will take a very long time and will take place at a dangerously large rate for interception by means Air defense altitude. Do not forget about the loss of speed for maneuver.
    The subsonic anti-ship missile system is supposed to carry out an attack more quickly, but it with its speed during a jump and MZA (phalanx / goalkeeper) of the target ship will easily ridicule.

    The only option is a tandem warhead (cumulative + OF). Well, or anti-ship ICBMs, so there.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 13: 44
      +1
      Quote: Analgin
      Most? I know about the second: the outdated Termit and the already removed from service modification of the Harpoon.

      Actually, yes, something I got excited :)
      Concerning the Harpoon - the fact is that any modification of the "harpoon" can do it without problems - a flight mission would have been introduced. On modern modifications, preference is given to flying on ultra-low ones, but when armored targets appear, the flashing will not take much time.
      Quote: Analgin
      And if you think about it - how to carry out the dive itself? A heavy supersonic missile cannot "dive swiftly"

      But she doesn’t need to. A heavy supersonic rams the side at a speed that far exceeds the rate at which an 406-mm projectile hits an enemy ship.
      Quote: Analgin
      The subsonic anti-ship missile system is supposed to carry out an attack more quickly, but it with its speed during a jump and MZA (phalanx / goalkeeper) of the target ship will easily ridicule.

      Given the fact that modern rockets have already learned to withstand overloads of several tens of ges and given the fact that firing at a rocket performing a maneuver is quite complicated and no matter how complicated than a straight-forward missile
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 14 2014 14: 00
        0
        Otomat also knows how to make a slide.

        The article gives examples of how high-explosive shells explode when hit in an unarmored nose, hitting a gun’s pedestal, etc. .. And what? Can shrapnel still shoot or shot?
        The same Otomat, flying into the casemate, would have demolished this curbstone, and would have exploded already in the elevator, or the cellar, and with the force of a dozen such shells
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 14 2014 14: 11
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        preference is given to flying on ultra-low, but when armored targets appear - flashing will not take much time

        Not a specialist, but as far as I understand, a low trajectory is necessary to overcome air defense systems - the lower it flies, the more difficult it is to detect? In this case, while the rocket makes a hill, it is exposed to fire from some "Broadsword" and this also increases the chances of survival of the ship as a whole.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 14: 23
          +1
          Quote: Dart2027
          Not a specialist, but as far as I understand, a low trajectory is necessary to overcome air defense systems - the lower it flies, the more difficult it is to detect?

          So let it fly low, and near the ship it makes Gorka
          Quote: Dart2027
          In this case, while the rocket makes a hill, it is exposed to fire from some "Broadsword" and this also increases the chances of survival of the ship as a whole

          no more than a head-on attack
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 14 2014 16: 13
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            near the ship - makes Gorka

            So I'm talking about this - flies up to the ship and loses time on the "anti-armor" maneuver. And the rate of fire of the "Broadsword" is 6000 rounds per minute - here every fraction of a second is worth its weight in gold.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 16: 17
              +1
              Quote: Dart2027
              So I'm talking about this - flies up to the ship and loses time on the "anti-armor" maneuver

              Calculate how much time he will lose. Estimate how it will be for the Broadsword to shoot at the target, constantly changing the speed of displacement. Broadsword cannot hit a rocket, it shoots to where, in his opinion, the rocket will be at the moment when the shells fly. And the Broadsword can estimate the position of the rocket only based on the speed of the angular displacement of the rocket. And it’s constantly changing for a rocket making a slide, and getting into it is another task
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 April 14 2014 17: 09
                0
                Speed ​​is speed, but there is also inertia. A rocket flying at crazy speed cannot jump like Jackie Chan, and by making a slide it unwittingly makes its trajectory more predictable.
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich April 14 2014 13: 54
    0
    Everything has its time. The truth is different, the Russians have always been able to build ships and the means of dealing with them. As, however, and other types of weapons. It will require a situation of armor, it will be, it will require a situation of maneuver, it will be, it will require a situation of offensive weapons, we will have it. The main thing is people, and they are always stronger than armor and stronger than a sword. And they equally know how to apply it.
  • Kars
    Kars April 14 2014 14: 18
    +2

    Who else would say what kind of movie.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 14: 27
      +1
      This is a cut from the Japanese TV series "Saka No Ue No Kumo" covering the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars
      1. Kars
        Kars April 14 2014 14: 48
        +1
        Thank you. Now I’ll swing it.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2014 15: 02
          +2
          Not at all, always welcome!
          When I wrote alttsushima, I was inspired by this clip :) Sneaks.
  • kirpich
    kirpich April 14 2014 16: 56
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    but with such a reservation, the displacement will be off scale
    To read off scale for what mark?


    Plimsol's disk will be put on a bulwark smile
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 14 2014 17: 39
    0
    On the topic: Resuscitation and modernization of KR 1144 "Adm. Nakhimov" makes sense. And turn it into a well-protected missile platform to the delight of the warriors and the sadness of the enemies am
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 14 2014 17: 46
    +1
    The author writes and writes everything ... but armadillos do not build and do not build ... tongue

    Good luck in the further war with "windmills" ...
    1. askold
      askold April 14 2014 20: 04
      +3
      Well, ships may not be built, but ice-class ships are even built. I saw such "sailors" in the port of Dudinka, - container ships of the "Norilsk" type. Commonly called "carrots" for the characteristic bright red-orange color of the side, ( the superstructure is snow-white). It was a wonder for us rivermen to see huge sea vessels on the river, though the Yenisei is a mighty river. So I was surprised by the 9-meter draft and the fact that waist armor was welded along the waterline along the side. I don't know the thickness, but it looked impressive, I remember I even joked that battleships are no longer fighting, but are exploring the Arctic. wink
      1. Taoist
        Taoist April 15 2014 12: 30
        +1
        This is called the "ice belt" - there is not only "armor" - there is a specially reinforced hull recruitment scheme. But this constructive protection covers a narrow belt along the waterline, and the thickness there is still not "battleship" ... (By the way, during the famous "ice campaign" of the Baltic fleet, when there was an acute shortage of icebreakers, battleships were actively used as icebreakers - an armored iron coped well with heavy ice - much better than with bombs and shells)
        1. Santa Fe
          April 15 2014 12: 44
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          the armored iron did a good job with heavy ice - much better than with bombs and shells

          But from now on in more detail

          How many WWII battleships were sunk by conventional bombs?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol April 15 2014 15: 59
            0
            Someone once told you that battleships must be drowned with conventional bombs? Do not believe that person :)
  • Cossacks
    Cossacks April 15 2014 08: 08
    0
    Very interesting article. On the question of security. As reported, "Mistrals" are built according to civil standards, i.e. survivability at the barge level.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich April 15 2014 13: 50
      0
      ... And the price is like that of a BOD laughing
      And here it is not necessary to laugh, but to cry.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 15 2014 14: 01
        0
        Quote: kirpich
        ... And the price is like that of a BOD

        Mistral is three times cheaper
        1. kirpich
          kirpich April 15 2014 17: 48
          0
          Really? But what about the guarantee of 12 months of operation?
      2. Andrey77
        Andrey77 April 15 2014 17: 15
        0
        Sound the price of BOD. And we think, laugh or cry.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 15 2014 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: Andrey77
          Sound the price of BOD

          BOD has not been built for 15 years

          US destroyer Burke = $ 2,2 billion
          British destroyer Daring = 1,5 billion pounds st.
          Russian frigate "Gorshkov"> $ 500 million (not yet completed)
          Mistral - $ 800 million apiece
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 15 2014 09: 51
    +1
    And of course, armor will save human lives. Which are priceless.
    It is difficult to disagree with this. Anything that increases the survivability of the ship and the protection of its crew at least deserves attention and serious analysis. The argument "expensive" is unlikely to prevail here. Yes, with the advent of firearms, mankind gradually abandoned chain mail and armor, but now the armor has returned to the infantry. Another argument, nuclear ammunition, if it guarantees the defeat of a battleship class of the Second World War, is mainly with a direct hit, for example, the German heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen" practically survived two nuclear explosions during tests, being motionless and without survivability. Finally, not every battle at sea implies a global nuclear war, the use of nuclear weapons. If there is a need for ships-arsenals, ships for "cleaning" the coast, armor cannot be superfluous. In the Battle of Jutland, the attitude to armor on German and British battlecruisers clearly demonstrated that defenses were no less important than offensive weapons. The Germans from the weaker guns drowned the British with stronger artillery, but weaker armor, weaker protection. I think battleships will still be reborn as universal missile and artillery units for conquering supremacy at sea and controlling coasts. Oleg plus for the topic.
  • starley
    starley April 15 2014 12: 21
    +1
    Armor is a form of passive protection that needs to be carried around constantly, but whether it is useful and fulfills its functions is a question.
    It's time to find ways to actively protect the body energy. It is possible to lift a mass of water along the trajectory of a projectile, huge currents can be induced in a moving mass of metal. A person’s life is not as cheap as they try to inspire us.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 15 2014 12: 46
    +1
    I already wrote that booking as such (i.e. in the classical form - armored belt, armored deck) for a modern ship and modern weapons of destruction is meaningless.) Another question is that to provide constructive (including armored) protection of combat posts and especially vulnerable points of the ship really (which, however, is being done now). Active systems are much more effective protection against "small-caliber anti-ship missiles". Even the long-obsolete AK630 - and in fact there are and continue to be developed much more advanced means of destruction operating in a completely "deserted" mode. "It is in the field of active protective systems and not increasing passive booking that the general paradigm of the development of protective equipment is located. The author is unfortunately so in love with his fantasies that constantly "manipulate" the facts based on the presentation of the material. In this article, he examines the battle in the time of Tsushima, comparing the survivability and loss of personnel with the cases of 70-80s of the last century ... Well, why not consider, for example, the Jutland battle? or the loss of the battleship Marat's l / s from being hit by just one bomb ... Practice has shown that passive defense does not fully fulfill its tasks. That is why the armored mastodons left the stage. And not at all because of the "conspiracy of bloodthirsty admirals" ...
    1. Santa Fe
      April 15 2014 12: 56
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      I already wrote that booking as such (i.e. in a classic form - armored belt, armored deck) for a modern ship and modern means of destruction is pointless.

      You can write anything - prove with concrete examples
      There is not a single modern ammunition equal in penetration to the 16 'projectile of the WWII times (we will not consider the specific GBU-28 - it must be dropped from 8 km, which is suicide)
      Quote: Taoist
      Active systems are much more effective protection against "small-caliber anti-ship missiles".

      They do not cope.
      There will always be someone who turns off the radar in the war zone. Yes, and the speed and effectiveness of modern active self-defense systems in question


      Target hit the cruiser USS Chancellorsville
      November 2013, damage 33 million dollars

      Quote: Taoist
      protection of combat posts and especially vulnerable points of the ship is real

      Unreal.
      After being hit by anti-ship missiles, a serious fire starts and all "local" half-measures become useless
      Quote: Taoist
      Or the loss of l / s battleship Marat from getting just one bomb ...

      Marat is an unsuitable example - the weakest ship in its class, the 1909 of the year of construction, by the beginning of WWII only formally was considered a battleship. Armored Deck - 30 mm

      Just ONE bomb? 1,5 tons! - to compare warhead modern Harpoon - 225 kg
      Quote: Taoist
      Practice has shown that passive protection does not fully perform its tasks

      Active doesn't execute them at all
      Quote: Taoist
      That is why armored mastodons left the scene.

      The appearance of nuclear weapons, the threat of world war, a general decrease in the role of the surface fleet
  • Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 15 2014 16: 30
    +1
    Again ...... I already spat on arguing under the publication about Prince Eugen.
    The author, have you forgotten why, after the Second World War, armored ships quickly left the scene? Let me remind you that the main reason that destroyed battleships with cruisers was an underwater explosion. No one managed to create a reliable PTZ battleship of the first world that underwent modernization, generally sank from one torpedo-Conte Di Cavour after the "Night of Taranto". West Virginia sank from 2 torpedoes in Pearl Harbor, when receiving more than 2 torpedoes they generally quickly sank - Barham, for example. Even the PTZ of such a monster as Yamato was unable to withstand numerous strikes. Against modern torpedoes, all the more, it is hardly possible to create an adequate PTZ.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 15 2014 17: 02
      0
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      why, after World War II, armored ships quickly left the stage

      The appearance of nuclear weapons, a premonition of World War III, a general decrease in the role of large surface ships
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      is an underwater explosion

      Not so categorically
      An underwater explosion is dangerous - but who is capable of delivering a torpedo?
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      sank from one torpedo-Conte Di Cavour after "Taranto Night". West Virginia

      Ships from the First World War
      Their PTZ was no
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      modernized battleship of the first world

      Has modernization affected anti-torpedo protection?
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Against modern torpedoes, moreover, it is hardly possible to create an adequate PTZ.

      Name at least ONE modern aircraft-based torpedo
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov April 16 2014 16: 47
        +1
        I won’t argue with you, it’s useless. The armor in your brain is already so saturated that you can’t etch it anymore.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 15 2014 20: 55
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Marat is an unsuitable example - the weakest ship in its class, the 1909 of the year of construction, by the beginning of WWII only formally was considered a battleship. Armored Deck - 30 mm

    Just ONE bomb? 1,5 tons! - to compare warhead modern Harpoon - 225 kg


    Somehow you are not friends with numbers at all. Yes, the reservation of Marat (Petropavlovsk) certainly did not reach the formidable title of a battleship ... But nevertheless, it significantly exceeded all that crap (in the form of a 100-150mm armor belt) that you offer. Battleships of this type had three armored decks. 37.5 mm top. 25mm middle and 12mm bottom. those. 75mm spaced armor. The turret roofs had a decent 125mm. And I got into it only 500kg. (One or two data differ.) Despite the fact that these were not even armor-piercing ... but ordinary high-explosive SC-500 ... (for exact data, see the Bulletin of Naval Shipbuilding NK Navy No. 3 "Description of combat damage of LK Petropavlovsk".
    By the way, about "modern aircraft-based torpedoes" - do you think it will take a long time to "blow off the dust" with the same RAT 52?

    "You draw, you draw ... it will be credited to you, I will explain something incomprehensibly later." (from)
    1. Santa Fe
      April 18 2014 22: 13
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      I will later explain what is incomprehensible

      I will always show what you are mistaken
      Quote: Taoist
      75mm spaced armor

      The strength of the armor increases in the square of its thickness
      75 / 37 = 2 ^ 2 = 4 times! - the strength of the spaced armor is significantly less than that of a homogeneous armor of a similar thickness
      Quote: Taoist
      Do you think it will take a long time to "blow off the dust" with the same PAT 52?

      First, find a kamikaze who can fly to the ship at 500 meters at a height of a couple of thousand meters. Against Modern Aggis and C-300

      and the torpedo dropped in this way will be riddled with Cortiks and Phalanxes while it descends by parachute
      Quote: Taoist
      and the usual high-explosive SC-500 ... (for exact data, see the Bulletin of Naval Shipbuilding of the NK Navy No. 3 "Description of combat damage of the LK Petropavlovsk".

      erroneous data in the Bulletin

      On September 21, at the Tirkovo airdrome, where two StG2 Immelman groups were based, the long-awaited 1000-kg bombs finally arrived. The exact number of bombs received is unknown, but from an analysis of subsequent events, it can be concluded that there were no more than ten of them. Although the Ju-87B-2 and Ju-87R-2 with which the squadron was equipped had a maximum bomb load of 1000 kg, in the initial period of the war on the Eastern Front, their standard armaments were mainly high-explosive bombs SC50, SC250 and SC500. Usually, the “Pieces” carried one 250 kg bomb under the fuselage and one 50 kg bomb under each plane, or one 500 kg bomb under the fuselage.
      Therefore, it is not surprising that there was no equipment in Tirkovo designed to transport and lift 1000-kg bombs. As a result, the gunsmiths, with the help of other ground personnel, first dragged the bombs to the aircraft parking lots, and then manually lifted them and hung them under the Shtuk fuselages. Each such operation was performed by at least twelve people. Finally, by the morning of September 23, armor-piercing bombs were ready for use


      Marat was sunk by PC1000 armor-piercing bombs
  • bk0010
    bk0010 April 15 2014 21: 53
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    1. Nowadays, it is not necessary to install too thick armor, which was used on battleships and dreadnoughts in the early twentieth century. The most common of modern anti-ship weapons (Exochet, Harpoon) have negligible armor penetration compared to large-caliber shells of the Russian-Japanese war.

    Already not your first article is built on the above statement.
    1) Do you have links to data on the armor-piercing abilities of these anti-ship missiles?
    2) Why are you considering a Harpoon? Amers should not be afraid of the Harpoons, but of the Granites, Volcanoes, Mosquitoes, X-22 and other Clubs. What should be the armor in order to extinguish the impact of the Mosquito (recall: the carrier is a missile boat)?