Military Review

Soviet battleships in World War II

76
The Great Patriotic War found the Soviet fleet in a not very combat-ready state. XNUMX year development program fleet provided for the construction by 1946 of 15 battleships, 15 heavy and 28 light cruisers, 144 destroyers and destroyers, as well as 336 submarines. However, before the war itself, the program was decided to be reduced, and the war prevented the completion and launching of the already laid battleships and heavy cruisers. It so happened that the USSR entered the Second World War, having only 3 battleships inherited from Tsarist Russia. These were battleships of the Sevastopol class, the construction of which was carried out from 1909 to 1914.


In total 4 of the ship was built: “Gangut”, “Poltava”, “Petropavlovsk” and “Sevastopol”. All of them participated in the First World War and survived it safely. After the revolution, the battleships became part of the Soviet Navy. “Petropavlovsk” was renamed to “Marat”, “Sevastopol” was renamed to “Paris Commune”, “Gangut” received the name “October Revolution”, and “Poltava” - “Mikhail Frunze”. In the last year of 1923, there was a strong fire that caused the ship significant damage. It was considered inexpedient to restore it, part of the equipment from it was used to repair the 3's remaining in the line of battleships.

Battleships of the “Sevastopol” type possessed a hull of a characteristic “monitor” form, with a minimized freeboard area and an icebreaker form. The longest hull length was 181,2 m., Width 27 m., Draft 8,5 m. The standard displacement of the project was about 23 th. Tons, but in reality it reached 24,8-25,9 ths. Tons, changing the draft of the vessel to 9,3 m. The power plant of the ship included the YNRW water-tube 25 steam boilers. Coal was used as fuel for the boilers; in the accelerated mode of operation, oil was used. The power plant in the forced mode gave 42 000 HP and provided the ship with a speed in the 23 node, the cruising range was 4000 miles.

Soviet battleships in World War II
Battleship class Sevastopol 1914


The main armament of the ship was the 12 305-mm rifled guns produced by the Obukhov factory, which were placed in the 4-s three-gun turrets arranged linearly. The technical rate of guns was 1,8 shot per minute, in practice it all depended on the level of training of the team. The ship’s anti-mine weapons consisted of 16-120-mm Vickers shells, their rate of fire reaching 7 rounds per minute. All 16 guns were placed in dungeons on the middle deck. This placement of artillery had significant drawbacks and affected the effectiveness of its firing. The trunks of 120-mm guns turned out to be only 4,6 m above the water, which, in combination with the low seaworthiness of the battleships that had been buried in a wave along the first tower already with a slight sea disturbance, greatly complicated their use (especially the nose guns). To some extent, this was a disease of many battleships of that time, but the Russians stood out for the worse because of their seaworthiness and the location of the entire mine artillery on the middle deck.

Before World War II, these battleships were upgraded. Work on the improvement of the ships took place under various programs and in different periods from 1927 to 1938 year. Modernization of the ships greatly changed their silhouette. The ships received a tank superstructure, rigidly fastened to the hull and closed on top with a solid flooring. The complex “war tube — foremast — nose tube” was modified. Has undergone changes and improved nasal tip, which reduced the fill of the deck at full speed. The power plants transferred from coal to oil were replaced, the living conditions for the team were improved. Installed the latest means of communication, new optical range finders in the towers, changed the fire control system. Significantly improved air defense system.

The last upgrade was the battleship "Paris Commune", from 1933 to 1938, the ship stood at the docks of the Sevastopol Marine Plant. After all the work was completed, the displacement of the battleship reached 31 275 tons (from design 23 000), length was 184,5 m., Width 32,5 m. (Due to the installation of anti-torpedo bulls), sediment - 9,65 61 HP 000 maximum node speed. The ship received significantly enhanced anti-aircraft weapons. The 23,5-X 6-mm anti-aircraft guns were openly installed on the bow and stern turret. In addition, the ship received 76-16-mm artillery shells and 37-X 14-mm machine guns.
Battleship after upgrading


Battleship "Paris Commune"

The war found a battleship in Sevastopol, where already 14 July 1941, he first opened fire on a plane Ju-88. With the breakthrough of the German troops in the Crimea, the ship became vulnerable to air attacks, so on the night from 30 to 31 in October, the battleship, accompanied by the cruiser Molotov, the leader of Tashkent and the destroyer Sorazyazitelny, left the main fleet base and went to Poti. From 26 to 29, November 1941, the battleship conducted its first combat operation to support the forces defending Sevastopol. On the night of November 28, in a strong storm (winds up to 8-9 points), the ship approached Cape Fiolent and fired 146 high-explosive 305-mm 299 high-explosive 120 shells and more 11 high-explosive 3-mm shells from the German forces in the villages of Baydary, Pavlovka and Rear XNUMX. . On the way back, the storm increased, the wind speed reached XNUMX points. As a result of the storm overboard, the sailor's XNUMX was washed away - these sailors were the only combat losses on the ship during the entire war.

On December 27, the ship re-emerged from Poti under the flag of Vice-Admiral L.A. Vladimir Vladimir, the commander of the squadron, accompanied by the leader Tashkent and the destroyer Intelligent. The ships had the same task - to provide artillery support to the defenders of Sevastopol. On the night of December 29, the battleship rose in the South Bay and fired at German positions in the Belbek Valley during 14 hours, using 179 305-mm and 265 120-mm shells, the enemy’s battery, which opened it, was fired by fire from the battleship no hits received. Having taken the wounded defenders of the city on its 1025 board, the December ship 30 arrived in Novorossiysk.

In the first half of 1942, the ship took an active part in supporting the actions of the 44th Army, which landed in the Crimea. During firing on the night of March 21 to 22, sailors noticed that metal fragments were flying away from the main-caliber guns, which was a signal of the maximum wear and tear of ship's guns. Upon returning to Poti, the ship began to be repaired. On April 12, the replacement of all trunks of the main caliber was made, but the active phase of the battleship’s combat operations came to an end. The desperate situation of troops near Sevastopol forced the commander of the Black Sea Fleet to turn to Headquarters with a proposal to use the battleship for transfer to the city 25 tanks KV, however, such permission was not obtained. Later, before the end of hostilities, the ship left Poti only once. May 31, 1943 the battleship was returned to its original name "Sevastopol".
The battleship "Sevastopol" USSR

During the war, the ship made 15 military campaigns, walked 7700 miles and performed 10 artillery fires, supporting Soviet troops near Sevastopol and on the Kerch Peninsula. Air defense systems of the ship repelled 21 enemy raids aviationknocking down 3 enemy planes. On July 24.07.1954, 17.02.1956, Sevastopol was transferred to the category of training ships, and on February XNUMX, XNUMX it was expelled from the fleet.

Battleship "Marat"

Already on June 22, the battleship entered the war, firing on the Finnish reconnaissance aircraft, and on September 9 the ship had to open fire on the German troops advancing on Leningrad, first with the main, and after 6 days with anti-mine caliber. The battleship was in a combat position in the basin of the Leningrad Sea Canal, from where, during 8 days, it fired intensively at the Nazis, using 1042 305-mm projectile and getting 10 hits of 150-mm field artillery, as well as 3 hits of 250-kg bombs. As a result, the 25 man was lost, the 4 tower, the 37-mm cannon battery, and fodder diesel generators failed. To eliminate the damage 18 September ship departed for Kronstadt.

At this time, Kronstadt was subjected to daily raids by German aircraft. On the morning of September 23, during the reflection of the 13-th group air attack (about 40 dive-bombers) in the Marat, 2 bombs weighing 500 or 1000 kg almost simultaneously hit the Marat. Both bombs hit the bow of the ship and caused the detonation of the shell cellars of the first tower. The terrible force of the explosion cut the body of the battleship, tore off the 1 tower from the ship, destroyed the foremast with a nose superstructure and the first pipe. The nose of the ship broke off and lay down on the ground. The explosion killed 326 crew members of the battleship. By the morning of September 24, the Marat took on board the 10 000 tons of water, most of its premises below the middle deck were flooded, the ship sat on the ground, and the 3 m board remained above the water.
Battleship "Marat" before the war

By the end of October, the Baltic sailors managed to return the ship to partial buoyancy, under the enemy’s fire they managed to ascend the stern, re-started 3 and 4 gun turrets. In November and December 1941, the ship conducted 97 firing, firing 407 305-mm shells. All the surviving 120-mm guns from the battleship were removed and sent to the land front along with the calculations. To increase the ship’s defense against German artillery mounted fire, granite slabs 40-60 cm thick were laid on the deck, and they were removed from the nearest harbor wall.

The Germans tried to suppress the damaged battleship, which now served as a fort, with the help of their artillery. Initially, they used 150- and 203-mm field guns for its shelling, and at the end of December they connected 280-mm guns of railway basing. December 28 one of these projectiles almost caused the secondary flooding of the battleship. The shell, breaking through the entire hull vertically, passed through the shell and charging cellar of the 3 turret and was stuck in the hold without exploding. In the future, the Germans did not have any success in the suppression of the ship by artillery. Over the years of the war, by the 17 of January 1944, Marat conducted 264 firing of the main caliber, firing 1371 305-mm projectile, the battleship fire destroyed 7 and suppressed enemy's 86 field batteries, struck at least 25 units. armored vehicles.

Battleship "October Revolution"

The fate of this battleship is similar to the fate of "Marat". The war found a battleship in Tallinn, from where that 1 of July went to Kronstadt, during the approach of the Germans to the city, the October Revolution included its artillery defense. All the attempts of the Germans to sink the battleship ended in failure, did not even help the combined strikes using aircraft and artillery. In total, during the war years, the battleship received 6 air bomb hits (from 465 dropped onto a ship) and 19 artillery shells hit. The battleship conducted 126 firing of the main caliber, firing 1442 shells on the Germans. The battleship anti-aircraft gunners repelled 24 air raids involving 597 aircraft and shot down 13 of them, damaging 3.

Remarkable is the fact that the most formidable ships of the Russian tsarist, and then the Soviet fleets, never during the First and Second World Wars did not meet in battle with the enemy ships. The only battleship battleships of the "Sevastopol" type were led into the Civil War. In the 1919 year, the battleship Petropavlovsk, carrying out the cover of the destroyer Azard, which carried out reconnaissance, repelled the 7 attack of the British destroyers.

Sources used:
www.flot.sevastopol.info/ship/linkor/sevastopol.htm
www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/Midel/07/04.htm
www.ussrfleet.1939-45.ru/lin.php
materials of the free online encyclopedia "Wikipedia"
Author:
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 6 July 2013 07: 11
    +6
    Their fate was strange. Although they did not conduct a single battle with the enemy’s ships in the Second World War, their contribution was enormous. Without the uncharacteristic, as it was believed, fire of their guns on the enemy on land, the defenders of Odessa, Sevastopol and Leningrad would be even harder and not only to them
    In the role of floating batteries, they did their job
    If the battleships are considered heavy tanks at sea, then the three battleships of the USSR were self-propelled guns
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 6 July 2013 08: 12
      14
      I agree with you about Leningrad, but in Odessa and Sevastopol, they did not say their weighty word. Surprisingly, our naval commanders with maniacal persistence protected these outdated ships from the enemy.
      1. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 6 July 2013 09: 21
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        Surprisingly, our naval commanders with manic persistence guarded these obsolete ships from the enemy


        It just did not make sense to make mass graves from these obsolete ships that did not have fire resistance for the naval war in the 40s. Too weak was the reservation on these ships, especially deck.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 6 July 2013 12: 27
          0
          Unfortunately, due to constructive miscalculations, they did not fit the 1914 war. The imperial command kept them away from the naval theater.
          1. Denis
            Denis 6 July 2013 13: 09
            0
            Quote: fzr1000
            they did not fit the war of 1914
            So in the Baltic there were more mines than a good hostess had dumplings in the soup
            The Germans, too, something the largest destroyer very rarely involved there
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 6 July 2013 19: 11
              0
              Read about the confrontation between the battleship Slava and the German fleet in the Baltic from battleships and cruisers. If he acted as part of a squadron of battleships and heavy cruisers ...
              1. Denis
                Denis 6 July 2013 22: 56
                -2
                Quote: fzr1000
                Read about the confrontation between the battleship Slava and the German fleet in the Baltic from battleships and cruisers
                There, it was also used more as a floating artillery battery.
                If he acted as part of a squadron of armadillos and heavy cruisers
                He would have had enough speed, but he was not very new? With a battleship, the difference is almost half, about Noviki and nothing to say
                1. fzr1000
                  fzr1000 7 July 2013 01: 00
                  +2
                  Find a description of how this "floating battery" maneuvered under enemy fire and only with 2-4 main battery guns opposed 10-12 guns of the same caliber on German ships. Honestly ...
                  1. Denis
                    Denis 7 July 2013 10: 55
                    0
                    Quote: fzr1000
                    how this "floating battery" maneuvered under enemy fire
                    Is maneuver under enemy fire and action in a squadron the same thing?
                    Well, honestly ....

                    And so that no longer new guns of the same caliber could compete with the enemy, it was necessary to create a roll-flood of the premises of one side. This also did not add traction qualities
                    Age, In memory of Azov, it would be even more difficult to compete with the Kaiser destroyers
                    1. fzr1000
                      fzr1000 7 July 2013 17: 51
                      0
                      Yes I agree. Why are we arguing?
                  2. Alekseev
                    Alekseev 7 July 2013 19: 15
                    0
                    And what battleships of the Baltic Fleet could still "maneuver under enemy fire" in shallow waters near the Moonzud ​​archipelago, except for "Glory" and "Tsarevich"?
                    Even "Andrew the First-Called" had too much draft.
                    Well, honestly ...
                    1. fzr1000
                      fzr1000 7 July 2013 23: 44
                      0
                      And what prevented not from entering the Gulf of Riga, but getting closer to the territorial waters of Sweden, turning and hitting the Germans from the flank? That they were afraid of new dreadnoughts being released there.
                      1. Denis
                        Denis 8 July 2013 00: 39
                        0
                        Quote: fzr1000
                        That they were afraid of new dreadnoughts being released there.
                        Perhaps fresh in the memory of the action of U-9
                        The “U-9” commander Veddigen lies at the bottom of the North Sea, and the boat itself has long turned into a pile of debris, but on the ground, among the living, there is a youthful, somewhat gloomy-looking lieutenant Johann Spiess, the watch officer and assistant of Veddigen, who told me the story of the fighting "U-9".

                        “The twenty-second of September 1914. How well I remember this day! For me, it is a real turning point in the whole life path, one of those days that a person looks back with endless memories. On this day, a submarine imperceptibly gliding under water intervened in the struggle of states by the explosion of its torpedoes. We, the corsairs of the depths, dealt our first mortal blow. One British ship was already sunk by our comrades with U-21, but we were much more successful. On the twenty-second of September 1914, we sank the big English cruisers: “Hug”, “Abukir” and “Cressy”.
                        And this is at the very beginning of the war!
                        On October 11 of 1914, when returning from a patrol to the mouth of the Gulf of Finland, it was torpedoed by the German U-26 submarine under the command of Lieutenant Commander von Borkheim and sank with the entire crew (537 people) as a result of the detonation of ammunition. The Pallas became the first Russian warship to die in World War I
                        Bright memory to sailors!

                        And methods of dealing with submarines have not yet been worked out
                      2. fzr1000
                        fzr1000 8 July 2013 09: 24
                        0
                        Anti-torpedo nets exhibited around particularly important ships. But this was possible, in my opinion, only during parking.
        2. Crang
          Crang 6 July 2013 20: 28
          +2
          Yeah - in the end, our battleships had to fight the German dreadnoughts during the war with Japan. They had everything in order with protection. Only with weapons is not very.
        3. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 20: 35
          0
          Quote: fzr1000
          Unfortunately, due to constructive miscalculations, they did not fit the 1914 war. The imperial command kept them away from the naval theater.


          By the time of their launch, these ships were not much inferior to similar ships. Linear forces of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI excelled in a series of successful operations. In the Baltic, these ships fought honestly and did not allow the Germans to seize dominance at sea. Away from the theater of war ships were kept only in the Baltic Sea from the middle of the WWII, in conditions of numerical superiority of the Germans. At the World Cup, all fleet forces were active.
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 6 July 2013 21: 04
            0
            So I'm talking about the Baltic Sea. "Glory" was the last of the Borodino series; still a 19th century project. And the newest battleships were not allowed into battle due to weak armor protection, they were afraid.
            Compare the armor belt of a thread of "Arizona" or the same "Tirpitz" with the same "Petropavlovsk". Yes, "Petropavlovsk" is older, but the difference in approach is sooooo great.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 23: 57
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Compare the armor belt of a thread of "Arizona" or the same "Tirpitz" with the same "Petropavlovsk". Yes, "Petropavlovsk" is older, but the difference in approach is sooooo great.


              Confused - are we talking about the WWII or WWII period? If about PMV - then analogs should not be "Tirpitz" and "Arizona", but "Cavour", "Royal Sovereign", etc. - in their relation, the difference in armor is not great - there are also advantages. If we are talking about WWII, then yes - in comparison with the battleships of the last generation, the Russian / Soviet battleships were inferior to the Tirpitz. But this is understandable - the difference in construction is a couple of decades and no modernization will help. True, at that time, the force was no longer in the battleships.
              1. fzr1000
                fzr1000 7 July 2013 00: 44
                0
                Yes, at least about some period. The US Wyoming-class battleships had an upper armored deck of 57-76 mm, the Royal HMS had 50 mm, the Gangut had 37 mm, and this was in the bow and 10 mm at the stern. And the first two had the same armor along the entire length. The same is true for the vertical armor belt, our stern was practically unprotected.
              2. fzr1000
                fzr1000 7 July 2013 01: 10
                0
                Wyoming and Royal projects prior to PVM.
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 12: 05
                  0
                  Quote: fzr1000
                  Yes, at least about what period.


                  And if you compare all the characteristics? And then there are different doctrines - for example, the Italian battleships are also no better armored, but their advantage was speed.
                  Let's compare a part of the performance characteristics of "Wyoming" with "Sevastopol" ("Gangut") and "Empress Maria".
                  "Sevastopol":
                  main belt: 225 mm citadel,
                  100-125 mm of the tip,
                  upper belt: 75-125 mm,
                  upper deck: 37,5 mm,
                  middle deck: 19-25 mm,
                  lower deck: 12-50 mm. Speed ​​- 23 knots. The main caliber is 12 305 mm guns in 4 towers.

                  "Empress Mary":
                  belt - 262-125 mm,
                  upper belt - 100 mm,
                  towers - up to 250 mm,
                  three decks - 37 + 25 + 25 mm,
                  cutting - up to 300 mm. Speed ​​- 21 knots. The main caliber is 12 305 mm guns in 4 towers.

                  But the TTX type "Wyoming":
                  belt - up to 280 mm,
                  deck - 63 mm
                  towers - 305 mm,
                  cutting - 292 mm. Speed ​​- 20,5 knots. The main caliber is 6 305 mm guns in 3 towers.

                  Conclusion: "Wyoming", with slightly higher armor protection, is inferior in speed and armament to both "Sevastopol" and more advanced "Empresses Mary". They are still inferior to the more powerful superdreadnoughts of the British and Americans, but in general they are able to successfully withstand all other types of LCs of the WWI period.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 7 July 2013 12: 24
                    +1
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    The main caliber is 6 305 mm guns in 3 towers.

                    Wildly sorry, but where are 3 more towers?

                    General characteristics
                    Length (m): 171,3
                    Width (m): 28,3
                    Displacement (tons): 26000
                    Speed ​​(knots): 20,5
                    Draft (m): 8,5
                    Crew: 1063
                    Armament
                    Guns: 12 305 mm
                    21 127 mm
                    Torpedo tubes: 2 455 mm


                    By the way, you can still compare the dates

                    The battleship Wyoming was laid down on February 9, 1910, and launched on May 25, 1911. Upon completion of completion on September 25, 1912.

                    Sevastopol completed in 1914, laid in 1909

                    Maybe it is worth comparing with the ship of 14-16 years?
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 7 July 2013 14: 31
                      +1
                      ___________________
                    2. fzr1000
                      fzr1000 7 July 2013 17: 55
                      0
                      Listen, apologists of the royal dreadnought, why didn’t they participate in naval battles in the Baltic, if everything was so good? Once again, booking our ships was worse than everyone else (I don’t know what the Italian ones are). This is a fact, military and historical. I stop arguing further.
                    3. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 20: 11
                      0
                      Quote: fzr1000
                      Listen, apologists of the royal dreadnought, why didn’t they participate in naval battles in the Baltic, if everything was so good? Once again, booking our ships was worse than everyone else (I don’t know what the Italian ones are). This is a fact, military and historical. I stop arguing further.


                      But the same World Cup fleet worked perfectly. And the reasons for staying in the Baltic should be sought in the manual. The LC of the Imperial Fleet (at least its last LCs, and not the early ones) were recognized as good and this is also a FACT. And armor is not always the main indicator for a ship.
                2. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 20: 09
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Wildly sorry, but where are 3 more towers?


                  Excuse me, what are the other 3 towers? Three two-gun towers stood.
                3. Kars
                  Kars 7 July 2013 20: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  Excuse me, what are the other 3 towers? Three two-gun towers stood.

                  And what in the photo that I brought to you is not visible?
                4. Kars
                  Kars 7 July 2013 20: 26
                  +1
                  ________________
                5. Kars
                  Kars 7 July 2013 20: 30
                  +1
                  _______________________
                6. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 20: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  And what in the photo that I brought to you is not visible?


                  Oops. I agree - I was mistaken :()

                  fzr1000! I'm not trying to prove that the Sevastopol class was the best of the best, but I repeat - it was more related to the Italian shipbuilding school, which, I agree, was not the best option in Baltic conditions, but in general the ship was no worse than other peers.
                7. fzr1000
                  fzr1000 7 July 2013 23: 48
                  +1
                  But he could have been better than what he got on the way out. I think there is enough controversy. Already everything is in the past. By the way, Russia once again before the war sad did not have time to rearm.

                  Construction of battlecruisers at the shipbuilding yards of Petrograd, August 1915. In the foreground is the assembly of the hull of the battlecruiser Navarin, followed by the launched Borodino and Izmail, in the distance, on the slipway of the Baltic Shipyard, the hull of the cruiser Kinburn . Perhaps this is the only photograph where the bodies of all four superdreadnoughts are sealed together.

                8. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 15
                  0
                  Quote: fzr1000
                  did not have time to rearm.


                  I agree. The rearmament program for the fleet and the army was, although not the best, but certainly not bad. It’s a pity that they did not receive a single superdreadnought and battlecruiser. Although, on the other hand, after the PMV, their value has significantly decreased.
    2. Mikhail Zhukov
      Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 13: 56
      0
      The Wyoming-class aircraft were armed with 12 305 mm guns in 6 turrets, so in terms of armament they were in no way inferior to Sevastopol
  • Mikhail Zhukov
    Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 13: 49
    0
    With their reservation, they would not have fought a lot against the battleships.
  • Roll
    Roll 6 July 2013 10: 40
    -4
    wassat From which enemy in the Black Sea, the Germans had the only battleship Tirpitz, and then in Norway, but to fight the battleship with airplanes is not to face, only to fight back.
    1. Denis
      Denis 6 July 2013 13: 05
      0
      Quote: Rolm
      From what enemy in the black sea
      Did the Germans fight alone? About the dead fleet of Bulgaria and Romania is understandable, but:
      A really serious adversary was another country allied to Hitler - Italy. Mussolini's fleet was armed with 4 modern battleships, 22 cruisers, 59 destroyers and 110 submarines. In the event of a military conflict, a major Italian-German squadron could break through the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits into the Black Sea

      http://korabley.net/news/sudba_linkora_parizhskaja_kommuna/2012-12-17-1337
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: Denis
        A really serious adversary was another country allied to Hitler - Italy. Mussolini's fleet was armed with 4 modern battleships, 22 cruisers, 59 destroyers and 110 submarines. In the event of a military conflict, a major Italian-German squadron could break through the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits into the Black Sea


        Sorry, but the Italian fleet did not carry out a single successful military operation, even having total superiority. If it were not for the activity of the X flotilla, the Italian fleet could be considered floating targets.
        1. Crang
          Crang 6 July 2013 20: 29
          0
          Well, the battle in the Gulf of Sirte can be considered the success of the Italians.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 00: 00
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Well, the battle in the Gulf of Sirte can be considered the success of the Italians.


            Mb is still better than a draw?
    2. altman
      altman 6 July 2013 15: 49
      0
      did the Germans have the only battleship ???? something new... belay
    3. Letterksi
      Letterksi 6 July 2013 16: 25
      0
      The Germans had battleships, for example, Tirpitz, Bismarck. Pocket - Admiral Scheer, Count Spee. It is only a souvenir
      1. Roll
        Roll 6 July 2013 16: 34
        -2
        wassat Bismarck was at the beginning of the war ??? And the rest are heavy cruisers and not in the Baltic, not to mention the Black Sea.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 20: 26
          0
          Quote: Rolm
          And the rest are heavy cruisers and not in the Baltic, not to mention the Black Sea.


          Just in the Baltic - only one "Prince Eugen" is well-known. And on the Black Sea, only the light forces of the fleet and the air force operated.
        2. Crang
          Crang 6 July 2013 20: 37
          +1
          Where are the heavy cruisers? Are the Sharchnodst and Gneisau heavy cruisers? With a 283mm gun caliber and a 350mm belt? If they are heavy cruisers, then OOOVery good heavy cruisers. Our battleships most likely would not have been able to cope with them.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 12: 08
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Where are the heavy cruisers? Are the Sharchnodst and Gneisau heavy cruisers? With a 283mm gun caliber and a 350mm belt? If they are heavy cruisers, then OOOVery good heavy cruisers. Our battleships most likely would not have been able to cope with them.


            Despite the excellent characteristics, the Scharnhorst type LC was significantly inferior to the Russian battleships in its armament. Their main advantages are armor and speed.
            1. Drummer
              Drummer 7 July 2013 17: 50
              0
              Overly optimistic assessment. The superiority of the "Sevastopol" in the mass of the salvo is leveled out by the unsuccessful placement of the main battery towers, besides, the Scharnhorst is well protected from 12 "mm guns, but Sevastopol is not from 11". What can I say, Scharnhorst is 25 years younger and 10 tons more.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 20: 48
                0
                Quote: Drummer
                The superiority of "Sevastopol" in the mass of the salvo is leveled by the unsuccessful placement of the main battery towers


                Excuse me, but the worse is the layout of the guns at the Sevastopol? A similar scheme was used by the British, Germans and Italians. And then 9 283 mm is still not 12 305 mm. The collision of the Scharnhorst with the Prince of York, which carried more powerful weapons, was a disaster for the Germans.
                "Scharnhorst" was not designed to fight battleships - this is evidenced by its characteristics. True, in terms of armor protection, it surpassed Sevastopoli by an order of magnitude. This LOC could force the fight on any old LOC and end it whenever he wanted.
                1. Drummer
                  Drummer 8 July 2013 10: 04
                  0
                  The linear arrangement of the towers near the Sevastopol limited the firing sectors of the middle towers, in a battle with the faster Scharnhorst this is a big problem. Sevastopol's contemporaries were already built according to linearly elevated architecture (for example, the Austrian Viribus Unitis and the Italian Conte di Cavour, which are close in ideology), but ours decided to do everything in their own way.
                  As for protection - a 350 mm belt as protection from 12 "looks better than 225 mm from 11", and 12 "from Sevastopol with 14" "Duke of York" cannot be compared.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 11: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Drummer
                    The linear arrangement of the towers near the Sevastopol limited the firing sectors of the middle towers, in a battle with the faster Scharnhorst this is a big problem

                    This is not a problem at all.
                    Quote: Drummer
                    As for protection - the 350mm belt looks better as protection from 12 "than 225mm from 11"

                    Let's clarify - 350-mm armored belt from 471 kg of shells or 225-mm armored belt against 302 kg of shells.
                    Of course, Scharnhorst will have advantages - but not at all what you indicated.
                2. Mikhail Zhukov
                  Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 14: 01
                  0
                  And on what battleships did the British place towers in the same way as in Sevastopol?
                  At the time of WWII, Sevastopol themselves then pulled on a full-fledged battleship even less than Gneisenau / Scharnhorst.
            2. dipqrer
              dipqrer 29 September 2014 22: 25
              0
              By fire performance Scharnhorst
              was identical to Marat, but in defense, speed,
              mine and anti-aircraft artillery, SLA,
              autonomy, and perhaps seaworthiness
              exceeded significantly.
    4. fartfraer
      fartfraer 6 July 2013 19: 44
      0
      Scharnhorst and Heisenau in addition to tirpitz, bismarck and pocket battleships.
  • Denis
    Denis 6 July 2013 12: 56
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Odessa and Sevastopol, they did not say their weighty word
    It's hard to call it weightless words.
    On the morning of December 29 1941, the advanced units of the 22 German Infantry Division were preparing for the attack. To Sevastopol Bay there was only 2 km. The last rush of assault battalions and the goal of the offensive has been achieved - the Black Sea Fleet will lose its base and the fortress will fall.

    A division of self-propelled guns moved along the front edge, artillery batteries were deployed. Suddenly, a low humming sound came from the side of the Sevastopol Bay. It was a ship siren howler. An instant later, a devastating barrage of shells of enormous destructive power covered the German position. A wave of sand and stones fell asleep to the infantrymen, assault guns soared up and rolled over like toys. This crushing blow was dealt by the artillery of the battleship Paris Commune. The main caliber guns literally point blank at a distance of 30 km shot German units. The shelling was carried out directly from the city center from the building of the "refrigerator" in the South Bay. The December general assault on the city ended in collapse.
    And the case is not single
    The battleship "Paris Commune" had to not only help troops in coastal areas, but also to protect naval bases from land attacks. In November, German troops broke into the Crimea. There was a threat of losing the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. On November 28 on November 1941, the battleship "Paris Commune" first opened fire with the main caliber at German positions on the outskirts of Sevastopol, and this is more than 500 shells. 29 December, at a critical moment in the defense of Sevastopol, the battleship’s guns “spoke up” again. The ship headed for the firing position in the South Bay. At the entrance, water columns shot up near the side. This was shot by long-range German artillery, but the ship moored safely and opened fire on a cluster of enemy troops in the Belbek Valley. The bombardment of fascist positions continued for 14 hours. Battleship has fired over 400 shells totaling 100 tons. Then the Nazi army did not have such mobile guns as the "Parisian", so all their attempts to capture the city failed.

    http://korabley.net/news/sudba_linkora_parizhskaja_kommuna/2012-12-17-1337
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 6 July 2013 20: 30
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    Surprisingly, our naval commanders with manic persistence guarded these obsolete ships from the enemy.


    The USSR Navy has always been in a subordinate position to the Army and all its operations were carried out not so much to seize supremacy at sea, but to support land forces.

    And at the expense of obsolete - I do not agree. The ships were undergoing modernization. Their peers in the fleets of England, France, Japan, Italy successfully fought throughout the WWII. Yes, as the main striking force of the fleet, they lost their significance by 39, but they should not be considered scrap metal.
    1. Mikhail Zhukov
      Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 14: 04
      0
      Their coevals were originally more successful and modern ships.
  • Crang
    Crang 6 July 2013 20: 33
    +1
    Who said they were saving? They just used them according to the setting. In the Baltic and Black Seas, where these battleships were based, the Germans simply did not have any significant naval forces. And getting out of these seas to the oceanic expanses was problematic. So our command not only protected these battleships from the enemy. During the entire war there was only one battle between relatively large warships of the USSR and Germany - the EM "Resolute" against the Z-39. In all other cases, torpedo boats, hunters, submarines, all kinds of converted schooners, etc. fought. trifle.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 00: 06
      0
      Quote: Krang
      Who said they cherished? They just used them according to the setting. In the Baltic and Black Seas where these battleships were based, the Germans simply did not have any significant naval forces.


      I do not agree - at least in the second half of the war, the Germans deployed their large surface ships in a number of operations in the Baltic. In addition, the Finns had a pair of coastal defense battleships.

      Quote: Krang
      And getting out of these seas into the ocean was problematic.


      So after all, they were not even allowed to go out into the sea - the Germans in their memoirs admit that at the beginning of the war they did not expect passivity on the part of large surface ships of the USSR Navy. At the end of the war, they avoided great losses precisely as a result of the passivity of the LK and Kr. THE USSR. (as a source - "War at Sea" by Ruge)
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 7 July 2013 05: 26
      0
      Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Scheer, Hipper in the north; Gneisenau, Lutzow, Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien "Deutschland", "Seydlitz", "Prince Eugen" and again "Hipper" in the Baltic - we went to Vyborg, to the mouth of the Ob
  • Kars
    Kars 6 July 2013 09: 20
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    but in Odessa and Sevastopol, they did not say their weighty word.

    Especially during the Kerch landing.
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 July 2013 11: 16
      +4
      ___________________
  • Russ69
    Russ69 6 July 2013 14: 21
    +1
    I was always struck by the archaic superstructures of that time in the ships of that time. smile

    Films on these battleships on the Zvezda channel recently aired.
    This one is about "Marat"
    1. Cat
      Cat 6 July 2013 16: 23
      +1
      Quote: Russ69
      I was always struck by the archaic superstructures of that time in the ships of that time.

      The ships of that time were created "based on" Tsushima - that is, they tried to reduce the number of unarmored superstructures as much as possible, hiding everything that could be behind the armor belt and under the deck. For artillery combat, the approach is quite logical.
      And the "cities" on battleships and cruisers of the 30-40s did not appear from a good life - they were required to accommodate the maximum number of anti-aircraft guns and provide them with the firing angles imputed to them.
      1. loft79
        loft79 6 July 2013 20: 52
        0
        Quote: Cat
        And the "cities" on battleships and cruisers of the 30-40s did not appear from a good life - they were required to accommodate the maximum number of anti-aircraft guns and provide them with the firing angles imputed


        Well, there actually is still different equipment. Rangefinder posts all sorts of GK, ZA. Therefore, such "Skyscrapers" smile
        1. Cat
          Cat 6 July 2013 21: 35
          0
          Quote: loft79
          Well, there actually is still different equipment. Rangefinder posts all sorts of GK, ZA. Therefore, such "Skyscrapers"

          There were KDP on the old battleships, plus their own range finder in each tower. And which is typical - all systems related to the control of the main gun fire, by default, stuck behind the armored belt. In addition to the rangefinders themselves, of course, they had to be raised higher. But in the add-ons shoved premises, service systems of those same ZA and their management, etc. etc., that is, something that does not play the grand piano in a normal battle.

          Once upon a time, at some naval forum, a topic came across - an attempt to simulate an artillery battle between battleships of the 1st and 2nd world wars. And if at long distances the "old" battleship was losing because of the difference in the quality of guidance and fire control systems, then when approaching, the "new" LK turned out to be in a worse position. Since all these superstructures are not only valuable fur, but also a source of fires, fragments, and other stresses for the ship's crew. Plus, the projectile fired in excess, instead of whistling over the deck, bumped into some setting and exploded, with all the consequences. The same fire, it not only looks beautiful from the outside, it also complicates the work of range finders - by means of smoke and "drying" of the KDP, the water used for extinguishing has a bad property to accumulate where it is not necessary, lowering the stability of the ship, etc. etc. Plus, all these outrages can be the result of medium-caliber hits - which the enemy has in an amount no less than the main battery, and also shoots more often. At the same time, the "old" battleships are much less affected by the SC - the belt will not penetrate the towers either, and there is nothing particularly interesting on the decks.

          Such is the effect of deck architecture on the outcome of the battle =)
          1. loft79
            loft79 7 July 2013 00: 03
            -1
            I say more equipment and weapons, but there is no place.
            Compared to the Japanese, our battleships are resting)

            Mutsu after the alteration.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 00: 08
            0
            Quote: Cat
            Such is the effect of deck architecture on the outcome of the battle =)


            This influence is now affecting - all modern ships have weak armor. A striking example is the loss of the British in the Falkland War.
          3. Mikhail Zhukov
            Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 14: 07
            0
            The battleships of WWII had, as a rule, higher speed and it was they who dictated the distance of the battle.
    2. Denis
      Denis 6 July 2013 17: 15
      0
      here about the Paris Commune
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k52Tsg4kJc
    3. Denis
      Denis 6 July 2013 23: 08
      0
      Quote: Russ69
      I was always struck by the archaic superstructures of that time in the ships of that time.
      There was a kind of modern, though it didn’t go
      Especially in this our current probable friends experimented.
      Minnesota 1911 g
  • omsbon
    omsbon 6 July 2013 14: 43
    +3
    The ten-year fleet development program provided for the construction by 1946 of 15 battleships, 15 heavy and 28 light cruisers, 144 destroyers and destroyers, as well as 336 submarines.

    After reading this program for the development of the fleet of the Soviet Union, somehow the current program is NOT impressive!
  • pensioner
    pensioner 6 July 2013 15: 00
    0
    Marat almost simultaneously hit 2 bombs weighing 500 or 1000 kg.

    Rudel said that one 1000 kg. hit.
  • pensioner
    pensioner 6 July 2013 15: 13
    +4
    All attempts by the Germans to sink the battleship ended in failure, even combined strikes using aircraft and artillery did not help. In total, during the war years, the battleship received 6 air bombs (out of 465 dropped on the ship)
    Mukhin in "Asah and Propaganda" has an interesting picture: the contour of the battleship and the places where the bombs fell. If you extract the outline of the ship from the drawing, then there will be an empty space (almost, 6 did hit)! At the same time, the ship's anti-aircraft gunners shot down 2 and damaged 7 aircraft (from memory, I could be mistaken in the numbers ... But the order is like that). The Germans weren't weak when the ship was bombed! These are not defenseless cities to bomb.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 26
      0
      An interesting conclusion, given that against the ships during the Second World War, all opponents threw the maximum air force that they had. Remember the actions of Japanese aircraft in the non-Pacific Ocean or the actions of our aviation fleet in the second half, when our pilots crushed German ships in the fjords.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 6 July 2013 16: 02
    +2
    The legacy of tsarist Russia - its battleships, alas, in the Second World War showed their complete uselessness as ships for battles at sea. "Marat" at least as a floating battery was useful to Peter.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 20
      0
      Most likely, the ships did not show their worthlessness, and their use - the English LCs, were not particularly better, but went through the entire Great Patriotic War, operating in the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic and others. And our fleet, weakened by the Civil War, was only at the time of recovery - a program for it rearmament was not weak in scope. It is a pity no attempts were made to develop aircraft carriers.
      1. Mikhail Zhukov
        Mikhail Zhukov 30 August 2015 14: 12
        0
        English battleships were better
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 6 July 2013 16: 19
    +3
    The fact that the battleships did not meet with similar enemy ships, I think, is not an accident. Most likely this was not necessary, and the pre-revolutionary battleships were clearly losing to modern Kriegsmarine ships. Perhaps they could still compete with German "pocket battleships" such as "Admiral Scheer", but with Tirpitz, it would be suicide. Therefore, they were used wisely and carefully.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 22
      0
      Excuse me, but did "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck" operate in the Baltic? In the Baltic Sea there were enough German cruisers (including heavy and air defense) that could be destroyed by our Navy, at least in the second half of the War.
      1. kara61
        kara61 12 August 2016 16: 48
        0
        By the 42nd year, the Baltic Fleet was no longer battle-worthy ships in the Baltic Sea. A few submarines on the move, that's all.
        All warships of the Germans were sunk by the British.
        Authentically in our Gustlov and Shoiben in Marinesco, and Goya in L-3.
  • Denis
    Denis 6 July 2013 16: 22
    +1
    Quote: retired
    The Germans fiddled weakly when the ship was bombed! These are not defenseless cities to bomb.
    Yet 6 - 76 / 55-mm 34К; 6x4 - Maxim’s 7,62-mm machine gun, and later 3-12,7-mm DShKs were not added to the optimism of such an area of ​​optimism. And this is only anti-aircraft, in the attack the torpedo bombers could fry the main

    And it was not just aviation that got to Marat
    Despite its immobility, the battleship actively participated in the defense of the city. Covering the caravans of ships from Kronstadt to Leningrad and vice versa with fire of guns, he fought a counter-battery fight. The Germans also did not doze off and repeatedly bombarded the Marat. On 12 of December 1941 of the 23 of large-caliber shells fired at the ship, three reached their target, two of which pierced the upper deck and exploded in the interior. It became clear that the thickness of the horizontal reservation was insufficient, so the work on laying granite slabs from the Kronstadt embankment on the upper deck of the battleship was accelerated. These works had not yet been completed when on December 28 two shells hit the Marat. One of them almost led to a new catastrophe: after passing through the artillery cellars of the third tower of the main caliber, the shell did not burst by a lucky coincidence. Nevertheless, the reinforced “granite” deck successfully fulfilled its mission: despite the fact that by the end of the 1943 year, the battleship “took” several more large-caliber shells, he did not receive any serious damage.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 6 July 2013 19: 08
      +5
      "North Carolina" for comparison had from 60 to 96 40mm Bofors and up to 40ka 20mm Oerlikons - that's really scary. And the Germans were afraid not of six Maratov pukaloks, but hundreds of guns and machine guns, which were dotted with the docks, breakwaters and breakwaters of Kronstadt that defended the old battleship
  • Per se.
    Per se. 6 July 2013 16: 47
    +5
    Speaking about the battleships of our fleet in the Second World War, one should probably remember the "Arkhangelsk" ("Royal Soverin"), which was transferred to the USSR at the beginning of 1944 as reparations to the Italian Navy. The battleship was under the Soviet naval flag from May 1944 to January 1949, until it was returned to the British.
    1. Denis
      Denis 6 July 2013 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      "Arkhangelsk" ("Royal Soverin")
      Was, but did not show himself
      Until the end of the war, the battleship did not leave the Kola Bay. The only time the main caliber of "Arkhangelsk" fired a blank salvo on Victory Day. September and December of the 1944 of the year “Arkhangelsk” spent mainly while anchoring, and in November it had 10 — 12 running days
      Geybritans would be good, especially since the war was over, did not fit
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 6 July 2013 20: 54
        0
        Quote: Denis
        Geybritans would be good, especially since the war was over, did not fit
        Well, of course, after the war, we and from the Italian fleet were not given the Littorio, which the Soviet Union claimed, but the old Giulio Cesare, which we named Novorossiysk, underwent repairs and modernization, was the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, before his tragic death on the night of October 29, 1955.
        1. Denis
          Denis 6 July 2013 23: 12
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          "Novorossiysk", was renovated and modernized, was the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet
          There it wasn’t necessary to modernize, it was necessary to rebuild, which is impossible. Armor protection for the sake of speed was weak. Its main thing is that the main caliber allowed the use of nuclear weapons
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 12: 11
            0
            Quote: Denis
            Armor protection for the sake of speed was weak.


            In the Mediterranean, all Italian LCs had an advantage in speed and range over British LCs.
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 7 July 2013 13: 12
            0
            Quote: Denis
            Armor protection for the sake of speed was weak.
            In fairness, I must say that for its time it was a very good dreadnought. Second, we must pay tribute to the Italians, who carried out the restructuring, having received, in fact, a new ship, which, if you do not go into ambition, was a good battle cruiser with a speed of 28 knots. A separate topic is the boring of 305 mm guns under 320 mm, with a noticeable increase in firepower, despite the removal of one three-gun main battery turret. Unfortunately, nothing of the kind was done on our old battleships, and they had even worse booking, according to the outdated conclusions of the Russo-Japanese war, where high-explosive shells were widely used. The speed of our old battleships, as well as protection from aviation, did not at all compare with the Italian. Therefore, dear Denis, for us the oldest Italian battleship "Giulio Cesare" was still a blessing, at least until the possible appearance of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 6 July 2013 21: 12
    +5
    In 19 - years, he worked in Vladik at the EO ASPTR. And, one day they dragged our cruiser "Alexander Suvorov", sold for nails. They dragged him to Hindu.
    Pancake! How did he resist, as he did not want to re-melt ...
    Now, you will not believe it, but there is a soul at the ship. How we missed him, how we pursued him, how he was caught, this is a separate song ...
    I, about the fact that this cruiser, could serve the MOTHERLAND ... Well, not at the border guard, but at least in re-melting. BL..D, I still do not understand - WHY, to sell metal of strategic importance on nails?
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 7 July 2013 12: 12
      0
      There is such a concept - "Betrayal".
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 7 July 2013 05: 31
    +3
    You read here the description of the first months of the war "they didn't have time there, they didn't start here." And sometimes you wonder if the army will let you finish what you have planned now? After all, a huge mass of funds is diverted to all sorts of things, such as the Olympics and the 2018 World Cup. Although, with this money, it was quite possible to build housing for workers in factories and employees of military science. I feel like they have dragged us into a crap like an arms race to drain our resources.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 7 July 2013 10: 44
    +3
    I have a bunch of photos from the "October Revolution". I must try to digitize, though I am not a specialist in this area. There are a lot of photos from different campaigns and that where it is not very clear. I know that my father said a lot about Cuba.
    May father was the commander of the main gun turret guns.
  • Sour
    Sour 7 July 2013 16: 33
    +1
    I advise you to read it.
    http://www.battleships.spb.ru/0595/obstrel.html
    That is why in WWI these battleships tried not to send into battle.
    In addition to their worthless armor, battleships of the "Sevastopol" class had a shameful cruising range of 3000 miles, which is less than that of battleships of the late 19th century. This, as well as poor seaworthiness, made these ships suitable only for the Baltic, and it is simply wrong to compare them with ocean-going battleships of the Wyoming class.
    The only strengths of the Sevastopol-class battleships (at the time of launching) were their high speed and powerful artillery weapons, especially mine countermeasures. This was the end of the merits.
  • roma-belij
    roma-belij 7 July 2013 21: 10
    +1
    I would like to continue the article about other types of ships of that time.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 7 July 2013 23: 33
      0
      I would like to have verified links. And then you read this before bed ... 15 battleships !!!
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 7 July 2013 23: 24
    0
    The ten-year fleet development program provided for the construction by 1946 of 15 battleships, 15 heavy and 28 light cruisers, 144 destroyers and destroyers, as well as 336 submarines.
    --
    Author, and the source can be? Those. in 1936 did the USSR possess such opportunities and money? Or have the program obviously unrealistic been accepted? In 36 years, WHO proposed building 10 battleships and 15 submarines, the name of the enemy of the people in the studio over 336 years?
    ========
    However, before the war itself, the program was decided to reduce
    --
    Very cute. What did you think before?


    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 8 July 2013 00: 29
      -1
      Oddly enough, but absolutely unnecessary aircrafts "Soviet Union" were built even during the Second World War. And this was when carrier-based aircraft proved their superiority over the LK, and destroyers were rightfully considered the main universal ships - "a servant for all", as Admiral Cunningham called them.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 8 July 2013 13: 31
    0
    Read the memoirs of N. Kuznetsov. The doctrine of the use of the fleet meant the defense of the flanks of the ground forces. Yes, and Stalin was the shore of the battleships - he understood that the war against fascism would end; the former allies would become enemies that needed a fleet to fight. In addition, everyone clearly understood the low combat value of battleships in battle with modern classmates and aircraft. There is little benefit from them in battle, and the damage in case of loss is great. Especially the loss of battleships would have affected the morale of the military. Therefore, they cherished.
  • mvbmvbmvb
    mvbmvbmvb 3 October 2018 15: 37
    0
    The sad fate of LK. And the whole fleet made a minimum participation in the Second World War!