The crown of the evolution of battleships

78


What do we have in the end? Only that, exceeding on average by a quarter the displacement of their European counterparts, the American battleships "Iowa" did not have any significant advantages. This is how the author of the previous article devoted to the four legendary battleships finished his thought. And we will continue this thought.

"King George V" (UK) - 5400 miles cruising range on 18 ties.
"Richelieu" (France) - 9850 miles on 16 bonds.
Bismarck (Third Reich) - 9280 miles on 16 knots.
Littorio (Italy) - 4580 miles on 18 knots.
Iowa (USA) - 15000 miles on 15 knots.

The crown of the evolution of battleships


The American battleship was not created for action in the Mediterranean "puddle". Unlike the Italians, whose ships could at any time return to the base to replenish their fuel reserves, the Yankees waged war in the vast expanses of the ocean. Hence - high autonomy, increased ammunition and special requirements for the seaworthiness of ships. That's it.

However, first things first.

Direct comparison of the battleships of the Second World War period (number of guns / armor thickness) is a bad thing. First, each steel monster was created under the conditions of a particular theater.

Secondly, the battleships strongly differed in size. Who is stronger - 45-th. ton Littorio or 70-th. Ton Yamato?

Third, speaking of such things as the construction of capital ships, it is necessary to make allowances for the state of the economy, science and the military-industrial complex of the countries in which these magnificent Bismarcks, Iowa and Yamato were built.

The last important circumstance is time. The world was changing at an unrecognizable pace. Between Bismarck (commissioning - 1940) and American Iowa (1943-44) there was a whole technological abyss. And if the technology of manufacturing cemented armor Krupp remained unchanged, then such delicate matter as radar and fire control systems (FCS), made a tremendous breakthrough in the future.



In the picture - 127-mm anti-aircraft missile Mk.53 with built-in mini-radar. Now, in the era of anti-aircraft missiles, you won’t surprise anyone, but then, in the 1942 year, the creation of radio tubes capable of withstanding the 20000 g overload was a real scientific sensation. During the war years, the Yankees shot a million such "blanks", determining that the destruction of one Japanese aircraft requires five times less Mk.53 than using conventional ammunition (~ 200 vs. 1000). The portable radio-fuse allowed the projectile to determine the distance to the target and to undermine the warhead at the most advantageous moment, filling the target with a barrage of red-hot fragments.

Taking the effectiveness of shooting each anti-aircraft gun with the usual 1 projectiles, the German Bismarck scored sixteen points (X. NUMX SK.C / 16 guns, 33 mm caliber). "Iowa" - a hundred! (105 pyatidyuymovok, shooting b / n Mk.20.) Funny and at the same time frightening conclusion: the effectiveness of long-range air defense of American battleships was at least six times higher than any of their European and Japanese peers.

This is without taking into account the capabilities of the MK.37 MSA, which centrally induced anti-aircraft guns according to radar data. Calculation of the relative position of the ship and the target continuously produced analog computer Mark-I. The MZA was controlled in a similar way: the Bofors X-speed 40, which had remote drives, received data from the Mk.51 sighting gyroscopic speakers, one for each of the quadruple units. Batteries 20-mm machines "Oerlikon" induced according to PUAZO Mk.14.

Quality has consistently been reinforced by quantity. By the winter of 1944, the battleships carried on the 20 of the quadruple Bofors units and up to the 50 of twinned and single Elikons with tape power.

Now it is not surprising why the South Dakota l / c (predecessor of Iowa, which had a similar air defense system and participated in the battles with 1942), shot down enemy aircraft during the war years. Even with the inevitable additions, even if the 64 downed "birds" - a tremendous military-technical record for the ship of those years.

Minemine Caliber Myth

One of the controversial points in the design of American battleships was the refusal of anti-mine caliber. Most of the battleships of other countries were necessarily equipped with dozens of 152-mm guns and a battery of large-caliber anti-aircraft 12-16 (90 ... 105 mm). The Yankees in this question showed boldness: instead of the medium caliber, the Iowa bristled with the 20 '5' / 38 universal guns in ten paired installations. As noted above, pyatidyuymovki proved to be a worthy means of air defense, but would have enough power in 127-mm shells to repel the attack of enemy destroyers?



As practice has shown, the decision was justified. The smaller mass and half the warhead were successfully compensated by the high rate of fire of universal cars (12-15 rds / min.) And the phenomenal accuracy of their fire (that is the Mk.37 MSA for firing at air and surface targets).

The destroyer "Johnston" thrust five-inch shells into the heavy cruiser "Kumano" 45, destroying the entire superstructure along with radar, anti-aircraft guns and rangefinder posts, and then fed the shells Congo, full of shells.
The destroyers "Samuel B. Roberts" and "Heerman" brought down a surgically precise fire on the cruiser "Tikuma". For half an hour of the battle, "Samuel B. Roberts" shot his entire ammunition at the enemy - 600 five-inch ammunition. As a result, three of the four main-caliber towers on the "Tikume" failed, the navigating bridge collapsed and the communication and fire control systems failed.

Episodes of the Battle of Fr. Samar, 25.10.44, confrontation of the Imperial squadron fleet and US Navy destroyers.

It’s easy to imagine what a Japanese destroyer who risked attacking the Iowa would have fallen into a whock!

Speed ​​Undertaking Myth

While designing the Iowa, the Yankees were suddenly carried away by such an unusual value for them, like the pursuit of speed. According to the plans of the sailors, the new high-speed battleship (fast battleship), intended to accompany the carrier groups, should have a speed of at least 33 nodes (~ 60 km / h). To disperse the hulk to the indicated values, it was necessary to install the second echelon of the GEM (power 200 ... 250 thou. Hp - almost twice as much as in Bismarck or Richelieu!). Excessive fascination with speed affected the appearance of “Iowa” - the baby acquired the characteristic “bottle” silhouette, at the same time becoming the longest battleship in the world.

Despite all the efforts, "Iowa" became the object of merciless criticism: none of the four battleships had never picked up the speed indicated. “New Jersey” gave all 31,9 ties to the measured mile. And that's it!

However, not all. The speed value is 31,9 knots. was recorded at power 221 th. hp with a ship displacement significantly exceeding the design (installation of additional systems and anti-aircraft artillery and the appearance of associated loads is a typical situation for ships of those years). With a reduced supply of fuel and forcing of turbines to thousand hp stipulated by the 254 project. Iowa's design speed could reach 35 nodes. In reality, no one dared to arrange a race on battleships, "killing" without the need for the precious resource of their cars. As a result, the resource was enough for 50 years.

We have to admit that the impetuous pursuit of speed turned out to be an expensive and meaningless event. Another military-technical record, not found application in practice. The only positive point was the long echeloned power plant, which radically increased the survivability of the ship.

Speed, radar, anti-aircraft guns ... But how would the battleship look like in a real naval battle? Where there is no place for subtle matters. Where all decide the big guns and a massive array of armor.

Not holy and not a scoundrel. It knows the price. He is well-versed in the secrets of the sea battle and can offer the enemy a number of unexpected surprises. Among them - the world's heaviest ammunition caliber 406 mm (armor-piercing "suitcases" Mk.8 weight 1225 kg). Due to its abnormal mass and competent design, such projectiles were almost as powerful as the 457-mm projectiles of the legendary Yamato.



During the short exchange of fire, Casablanca, the battleship Massachusetts (type South Dakota) had only four Mk.8 enough to disable the battleship Jean Bar (like Richelieu). At that time, the French were very lucky: the limited-combat "Jean Bar" had no part of the ammunition, otherwise, his death was almost inevitable - one of the American shells exploded in the cellar of medium-caliber towers.

Reservations. It is from this direction that the Iowa is loved to spin, tactfully closing their eyes to the other advantages of the American superlinkor. Surpassing any capital ship in all other respects, the Iowa had no noticeable advantages in the field of armor protection. Such a strong "middling" with its advantages and disadvantages.



Not the thickest (307 mm), but VERY high armor belt (in fact there were two - the main and the lower one, differentiated by thickness). A controversial decision with the placement of the armored belt inside the case. Weak traverse on the first two battleships. Extremely powerful protection of the conning tower, steering gear, towers of the Civil Code and their barbets (as shown by the results of real naval battles, these parameters were much more important than the thickness of the armor belt).

Adequate for the size of the battleship system of anti-torpedo protection: without overly complex and controversial decisions, such as the Italian system Pulese ("Littorio"). Due to the cylindrical inserts and the absence of sharp lines in the underwater part of the hull (as on the Richelieu), the American American PTZ system had maximum efficiency over most of the length of their hull.

High speed, powerful armament complex and high-quality MSAs, reliable GEM, good stability of the battleship as an artillery platform, excellent maneuverability (circulation diameter is in full swing - less than the destroyer!), Adequate security (without any frills, but without critical flaws) , high standards of habitability, well-thought-out construction (wide corridors, transparent Broadway, connecting the GK cellars) and, finally, autonomy and cruising range unattainable for European battleships.

It's a shame to admit that "Iowa" all battleships battleships. To alleviate the bitterness of the fact that the Yankees again have the best, it is imperative to find a couple of flaws in Iowa.

- Lack of transshipment offices, part of the ammunition was stored inside the barbets of the towers of the Civil Code. Is it too bold decision?

Of course, the ammunition storage areas were protected by a system of flame-proof sluices and doors, and the barbettes themselves served as additional protection. And yet ... However, the Yankees did not attach much importance to this: the detonation of the BC - even in the cellar, even inside the barbat - definitely gave the ship a pass to immortality.

By the way, the great Yamato also had no reloading compartments.

- The absence of an aviation hangar: reconnaissance seaplanes "Iowa" were stored directly on the catapults.


Landing aboard the Iowa reconnaissance drone RQ-2 Pioneer, 80s


- “Puny” emergency diesel generators (two for 250 kW). Obviously, the Yankees relied on the main GEM and 8 of the main turbogenerators of the battleship.

- Lack of hydroacoustic station. The standard solution for all American battleships and cruisers of those years, dictated by the concept of their use: the ships operated as part of battle groups, where PLO provided numerous destroyers (over 800 by the end of the war).

Finale

One of the largest, most powerful and expensive ships in stories. 100 million dollars in 40's prices: each of the “Iows” was worth as 15 destroyers! With a total displacement of 52 thousand tons (at the end of the war), they roughly corresponded in size to the German Bismarck and were inferior only to one Yamato. The only limitation in their construction was the width of the Panama Canal, everything else knew no restrictions. “Iowa” were built in the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world, which did not know the horrors of war and the lack of any resources. It would be naive to believe that in such conditions the Yankees would have built a worthless ship.

The number of built battleships (4) should also not be misleading - America is the only country that built capital ships at the height of the war. Strictly speaking, Iowa simply has nothing to compare. Smaller European pre-war battleships. a priori do not compare with the American monster. Even the best of their representatives ("Richelieu" and somehow completed the British "Vanguard" by 1946) for a long time could not be compared with "Iowa" in the quality of radar tools and fire control systems. “Yamato” takes brute force, but also absolutely loses to “American women” in the balance of its design and the quality of high-tech stuffing.


Four sisters




For the revival of interest in the subject of the capital ships of the period of WWII I express my gratitude to E. Reshetnikov
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    3 October 2014 10: 48
    An interesting article! I read it with pleasure! Author plus!
    1. +2
      3 October 2014 17: 57
      I completely agree! To the author-RESPECT! Completely adequate, realistic article! In contrast to previous articles about IOWAX
      1. +4
        3 October 2014 19: 16
        But I immediately had objections ... The author can offer his reasoning to the reader without hesitation, but documentary material is not a fable under a bottle of vodka, accuracy is needed here. The article contains a fragment of a story about the battle on October 25, 1944 off the island of Samar. This fragment is used as an argument for the effectiveness of 127-mm "station wagons" against heavy cruisers (!). Here's another description of the same episode:
        At approximately 5:56 am, the battleship Yamato opened fire from a distance of 15 miles on the aircraft carrier White Plains. He later transferred fire to the aircraft carrier Sen Lo. At this moment (07:24) Sprague broadcast a request for help, but Oldendorf was far away in the Surigao Strait, and Halsey was at a distance of 500 miles, connected by battle with the Ozawa formation. Admiral Sprague sent 7 destroyers [our "heroes"] and close cover destroyers to torpedo the Kurita formation. The destroyers managed to withdraw the heavy cruiser Kumano from the battle and delay the enemy's advance, however, they suffered huge losses in personnel, and 3 destroyers were also lost. A heroic attack by destroyers and destroyers diverted part of the forces of the Japanese squadron. Sherman calls this attack "one of the most daring and bloody battles of the entire war," and Kincaid "one of the most valiant and heroic acts in the war."

        At this time, Japanese cruisers bypassed the American group from the north and opened fire on aircraft carriers. All aircraft carriers received hits, the Gambier Bay aircraft carrier lost speed, then rolled over and sank. The remaining aircraft carriers, under enemy fire, fired aircraft that attacked the Japanese fleet with bombs, torpedoes, rockets and even machine-gun fire on a low-level flight. One of the cruisers sank, two were badly damaged ...
        One enemy cruiser was damaged, three destroyers were lost, the enemy broke through and drowned an escort aircraft carrier ... It should be noted that speed, maneuverability and small size played into the hands of the destroyers. The battleship will begin to receive 8-inch suitcases much earlier, while the Iowa will either have to abandon fire on destroyers that launched a torpedo attack and cruisers at medium range, or fire with the main caliber. A more objective conclusion from a simple analysis of the battle in Leyte Gulf would be to recognize the lack of mine-action artillery as one of Iowa's serious shortcomings.
        1. +2
          3 October 2014 23: 20
          Quote: SkiF_RnD
          One enemy cruiser damaged, three destroyers lost

          But what, you wanted to stop the 11 cruisers and battleships with 7 destroyers?)))
          The kids did a lot already - they knocked out several ships and detained the Kurita squadron until 500 planes from all the nearest islands and aircraft carriers flew into the square.

          Gunner of the 3 class Paul Henry Carr (1924-44 gg.) - Samuel B. Roberts, loading aft head of the destroyer. In the battle of Fr. Samar his calculation fired 324 shell for 35 minutes of battle. In the end, the whole calculation died. Mortally wounded Carr was found with a shell in his hands, which he was still trying to put on the tray of a broken gun


          Missile Frigate Paul H. Carr (FFG-52)

          Quote: SkiF_RnD
          Battleship will start receiving 8-inch suitcases much earlier

          Yeah, TCR Tikuma vs Iowa))
          Cruiser will sink even earlier from 406 mm suitcases
          Quote: SkiF_RnD
          you will either have to give up fire on destroyers that went on a torpedo attack and on medium-range cruisers, or fire at the main caliber.

          you have a strange logic, comrade, I do not understand you
          1. 0
            4 October 2014 00: 30
            My logic is normal. You cited the battle at Samara as an example of 127mm guns. In seven, stumbling (not to death) one single cruiser, during the same time losing three destroyers is NOT a good result. It is undoubtedly logical. The point is that for you, judging by the article, this is not so obvious ... You yourself wrote these guns as a plus for "Iowa", they say the power is enough. I still decided to correct you - no, absolutely not enough. About that and speech that you have to beat the main caliber on the little things. If there is such an opportunity, and “Iowa” has always had it, since the numerical superiority has been achieved, then this is not critical. And in the shortcomings, please, write it down. By the way. The only cruiser damaged in this episode is the Mogami-class Kumano, not the Chikuma, and it was damaged by a torpedo from the destroyer Johnson. What you brought as a quote is just someone's artistic chatter. hi
            1. +2
              4 October 2014 08: 35
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              In the seven to stumble (not to death with) a single cruiser

              You just do not know anything about this fight, copied and pasted an excerpt from the first source that came across (Wikipedia, "the battle in Leyte Gulf") and are trying to prove something chaotic
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              What you brought as a quote is just someone's artistic chatter

              The heavy cruisers Kumano, Suzuya, Tikuma, and Tone were located south and to the left along the bow of the battleships Congo and Haruna. To the right of the nose of the battleships were the heavy cruisers Haguro and Chokai. And in 600 yards on the right shell of the cruisers were the battleships Yamato and Nagato.

              3 destroyer and 4 destroyers escorted against the Japanese armada

              Result:
              Yankees lose 2 destroyer and destroyer
              What do the Japanese lose from art. US Navy destroyer fire? Open "Action Report - Surface Engagement off Samar, PI, 25 October 1944". USS Johnston (DD557)

              At the 5-inch gun's maximum range of 10 nmi (12 mi; 19 km), Johnston fired, scoring at least 45 hits on the Kumano's superstructure which erupted into flame and smoke

              And this is a report on "Samuel B. Roberts" and "Heerman"
              For the next 35 minutes, from as close as 5,300 yards (4,800 m), her guns would fire almost the entire supply of 5-inch ammunition on board, over 600 rounds. the Heermann also aimed her guns at the cruiser, putting her in a deadly crossfire. Chikuma's superstructure was ripped by salvo after salvo of armor-piercing shells, high-explosive shells, anti-aircraft shells, and even star shells that created chemical fires even in metal plates. The bridge of the Chikuma was devastated, fires could be seen along her superstructure, and her number three gun turret was no longer in action.

              Normally, the heavy cruiser riddled like that

              The documents are here - http://www.bosamar.com/, a site dedicated to the battle of Fr. Samar, need free registration

              The result of the duel of the TKR and destroyers was a foregone conclusion. The destroyers were killed, but they detained the enemy and with their guns inflicted sour damage on the cruisers (we are not talking about the torpedo that torn off Kumano’s nose).

              ps / Iowa with 20 guns is not an escort destroyer with two
              1. -1
                4 October 2014 13: 25
                I would not like to turn our conversation into a farce, but then Iowa probably simply has no chance against Japanese destroyers, even the main caliber will not help fellow After all, the destroyers of a new type were stronger than American what
                1. -2
                  5 October 2014 02: 22
                  Quote: SkiF_RnD
                  After all, the destroyers of a new type were stronger than American

                  What are these?

                  Stronger than Fletcher and Sumner?
                  Quote: SkiF_RnD
                  I would not like to turn our conversation into a farce, but then Iowa probably has no chance against Japanese destroyers.

                  Have you at least read my previous comment?
                  Is there anything to object to?
          2. +2
            4 October 2014 00: 33
            During the battle for the Philippines, the cruiser was part of the First sabotage strike formation. During the battle in Leyte Bay on October 25, 1944, it fired on American aircraft carriers and destroyers, while it itself got hit by a torpedo in the bow from the Johnson destroyer. A number of compartments were destroyed, the drainage system failed, and the speed dropped to 15 knots. American aircraft repeatedly attacked the Kumano. On October 26, 1944, he received three air bombs while passing through the Sibuyan Sea. The ship received new damage, the speed dropped to 10 knots and he was ordered to follow to Manila. The cruiser arrived in Manila on October 28, 1944, and by November 3, 1944 its hull was sealed, some mechanisms were fixed, and the cruiser could now move 15 knots. November 5, 1944 "Kumano" left Manila as part of a convoy. On November 6, this convoy was attacked by a group of American submarines. Kumano received two torpedo hits from the Ray submarine. The nasal tip was torn off, all engine rooms were flooded. But the cruiser stayed afloat and was towed to the Santa Cruz Bay on Luzon Island.

            On Luzon, the crew of the ship managed to pump out water, close up a hole and start one of the turbines, which was supposed to provide 6 knots. However, on November 25, 1944, he was attacked by a group of dive bombers and torpedo bombers from the Ticonderoga aircraft carrier. During the raid, the cruiser received five hits with air bombs and five hits with torpedoes, with the latter falling into the port side only. Despite the team’s attempt to straighten the ship, Kumano capsized and sank 45 minutes after the raid began. 595 people were saved from the crew, about 600 people died. The cruiser commander wished to die with the ship, but crew members evacuated him ...
            Japanese sailors, too, were not sewn ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. +9
    3 October 2014 10: 52
    Well, yes, but it was somehow illogical - the country with the greatest resources, fleet, scientific personnel - suddenly created a battleship so-so. Although, I must say, the Germans created a breakthrough in submarines. However, in what only the Germans did not make breakthroughs, jet planes, anti-aircraft missiles, helicopters.
    I wonder what the Americans had advantages for the personnel, I read that the Japanese had the worst conditions for deploying personnel.
  3. +11
    3 October 2014 11: 04
    Beautiful they are infections.
    1. 0
      4 October 2014 19: 49
      Because of these beauties, I entered LCI.
  4. Alexander
    -7
    3 October 2014 11: 15
    Stupid ships, which, without singing to be embodied in iron, are already outdated.
    1. +6
      3 October 2014 13: 50
      Quote: alexandr
      Stupid ships, which, without singing to be embodied in iron, are already outdated.

      And which can send a couple of submarines or a dozen torpedo bombers to the bottom. There were precedents. But handsome, this cannot be taken away.
    2. +8
      3 October 2014 15: 16
      Stupid ships, which, without singing to be embodied in iron, are already outdated.
      Yeah, these stupid ships served until 1991, participated in the war in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq and were in reserve until 1999 (that is, when they were written off they were 55-56 years old), here is an example of the use of large ships, you need to upgrade all ships of Project 1144 they will serve another 15-25 years.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        3 October 2014 17: 44
        '' took part in the war in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq '' It was not battleships that participated in these wars, but floating platforms for main caliber guns. the only duty was shelling the shore. And if they are so praised for participating in these wars that they are so irreplaceable, why did they not fight in Afghanistan. Then the Americans would have won for sure. By the way, mattress toppers lost all these wars, tk. the set goals were not achieved. The only thing the mattress makers achieved was that they destroyed a bunch of civilians and made irreconcilable enemies for themselves (someone now, someone later). It will come back to haunt them. But in general, the author is right - all American is the best forever.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +19
    3 October 2014 11: 19
    Again, another opinion about the eternal - which is better. My personal opinion is that only in real hostilities is the thesis about the best checked. And even then, everyone will still praise what is nice to him. After all, every sandpiper praises its swamp.
    Just some interesting questions. All this stuffing with electronics is very commendable. But what would happen to the ship with an adequate retaliatory strike? How long did South Dakota stand in repair after the fight with Kirishima? But the "Iowa" is practically a repetition of the battleships of the "Indiana" type in an enlarged form. And where is the guarantee that in such a collision, after (hypothetically) several hits on the superstructure, the Iowa will not go blind from the destruction of its detection, tracking and other blah-blah-blah radars? Therefore, it would be premature to assert that everything stuffed with super-timed (at that time) electronic means "Iowa" would be the best. With minimal countermeasures, yes, it will crush. With adequate - not a fact. A successful hit on add-ons stuffed with antennas and radars can fundamentally change the situation on the battlefield. But this is true, an assumption. So it is with anti-aircraft guns. Or maybe the destruction of 64 aircraft by an American battleship is not the result of super-duper electronics and special shells, but the general trend of a saturated defense of the air defense of American ships. Of course, put 100 barrels of 20-40mm machine guns on the Europeans and they would have such results. In this, the Americans, of course, outplayed the Europeans. BUT ... the war in the Pacific Ocean and the war in the European theater are two different things. Despite the fact that in the second half of the war in the Pacific, those who were thrown into battle without proper training fought on the part of the Japanese. And where is the guarantee that American battleships with trained crews of Japanese aircraft carriers would meet at the beginning of the war, maybe battleships would go to the bottom with minimal losses after coordinated attacks. And rightly so, they have nailed dozens of untrained "greens" and boast.
    Yes, they created, at a certain glance, an ideal design. But it is unproven to immediately rank it among the most-most. After all, not ships are fighting, but people.
    And how the Americans are at war, we already know ...
    This is my personal opinion
    1. -2
      3 October 2014 13: 40
      The situation in Lebanon was already described on the topwar, when they managed to cope with the Syrian air defense only by fitting the battleship.
    2. +1
      3 October 2014 20: 37
      It's not just about the radars — in itself, GFCS SUAO was very good for its time, and the radars only reinforced its merits.

      As for the battle with Kirishima, officially this ship hit the American only 1 time, in the barbet of the 3rd turret of the main battery. The remaining 26 hits the ship received from cruisers and destroyers. BUT only because it was passing by a burning destroyer, as a result of which it "lit up perfectly "and the Japanese began to shoot at him from everything that was, including torpedoes, of which, luckily for the Americans, everyone passed by. Washington was able to go unnoticed and destroy Kirishima, with the help of the radar, by the way! These are the turns of fate!
      1. +2
        3 October 2014 20: 51
        I was not there, but thanks for the amendment. It's just that the very fact of the vulnerability of the "best" speaks for itself. Piled on destroyers? So be it. The same result would have come from the hits of fewer but more powerful gifts from another battleship. Therefore, it is not so important. The important thing is that the entire ship is a target. And unarmored superstructures, even if they do not play a role in the water resistance factor, suffer even more than an armored citadel. And the American add-ons were an excellent unarmored target, but you can't book all the PUAO, PUAZO, radars, bridges and other rubbish. Yes, this applies to any ship (except, perhaps, the first monitors).
  6. +14
    3 October 2014 11: 29
    "Radar in a projectile" for a minute, called a radar fuse!
    PTZ of American battleships did not show itself very well; North Caroline received a torpedo from a Japanese submarine in the area of ​​the GK cellars, and not the most powerful one - 533 mm 480 kg BB (if I'm not mistaken of course). As a result, all 5 bulkheads were broken, the cellars were flooded. In South Dakota and Iowa, the number of bulkheads was reduced to 4's, and this was dictated by the possibility of passing through the Panama Canal, whose maximum width is 33 meters!
    About booking, the author forgot to mention the lack of it in the extremities, which is also not good.

    Well, in all other respects, yes, you can’t argue, the claims to the ship that were presented in a couple of previous works in my opinion (well, apparently in the opinion of the author of this work) are for the most part not substantiated. Of course, Iowas are not ideal, but omit them to the baseboard, too, do not!

    Now, if at least one Montana had been built, then there would be no questions about who had the best battleship in the world!
    1. +6
      3 October 2014 11: 46
      Hello Anton!
      I completely agree with your assessment, but here is another ...
      Kaptsov rightly points out Iow’s fitness for a particular theater.
      And it justifies the limitations that had to be taken into account when implementing the project.
      Now it remains to recall his opinion on the 941 project, where the same justifications are dismissed and directly opposite conclusions are made.
      IMHO: I find it difficult, which is worse ... Cape-petition or idolatry.
      1. +2
        3 October 2014 12: 14
        Hi Paul!
        Yes, here you are right on 100% and you can’t argue.)
    2. 0
      3 October 2014 12: 33
      There was no reservation at the ends. The Yamato has an even smaller armored vehicle.
      1. +7
        3 October 2014 13: 02
        And there it was! For example, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Litttorio.
        1. +1
          3 October 2014 18: 04
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Scharnhorse

          well, there was no sense in those 70 mm then the harpoon could not hold such armor. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the fragments of medium-caliber bombs. That’s how Iowa kept buoyancy with completely flooded extremities.
          1. -1
            3 October 2014 18: 22
            Please write more literate! It is difficult to understand the essence!
            1. +1
              3 October 2014 19: 54
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              Please write more literate!

              and what will it be for me? the five in the diary?
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              The point is that large fragments can sometimes do harm no worse than from full-fledged shells

              not for the 50 000 ton battleship - it’s not shefield that it burned out from an undeveloped rocket.
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              And this is a very significant loss of speed and stability.

              Can you imagine how much he needs to be torn off with a system of sealed compartments so that he would take so much water :?
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              , and the crew will have to try hard to prevent the spread of water further into the citadel
              probably made hermetic bulkheads for this?
              1. +1
                3 October 2014 20: 25
                Surely the bulkheads can break through and be destroyed by enemy shells! And they probably can’t withstand an unlimited load, and from a certain pressure of water they can collapse! Unsinkable ships are not a priori if you did not know!
                Bulkheads by the way appeared long before the time of construction of this ship, if that!
                1. -2
                  3 October 2014 22: 26
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Probably bulkheads can break through and collapse with enemy shells!

                  With shells, yes, but not with fragments,
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  And surely they can not withstand the unlimited load

                  Well, there are a lot of compartments, a lot, and the main load on the arm traverses.
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  ! Unsinkable ships are not a priori, if you did not know!

                  Of course, no, but Iowa would not be able to sink Iowa by hitting its unarmored extremities, and the ships returned without any stern or bow to the bases.
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Bulkheads by the way appeared long before the time of construction of this ship, if that!

                  Yes you really?
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  Forget about missiles in general now! Now we are talking about comparing these battleships with its counterparts from the Second World War!

                  Why forget something, if we have the advantage that we are in the future with respect to battleships. And in fact the thin armor of Bismarck or the more Scharnhorst doesn’t help in any way during an art duel with Iowa
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  So that he would not drown from fragments, which is similar to an unexploded rocket and they made reservations at the ends!
                  The splinter will not break through much and will not suit much flooding. In order to inflict significant damage, the battleship should be under continuous fire for several hours, and if it allows it, with its guns, then in principle no armor will help.
                  1. +3
                    3 October 2014 23: 37
                    Quote: Kars
                    , the ships returned without stern or bow to the bases.

                    TKR Pittsburgh cheerfully returns to base
                  2. +1
                    4 October 2014 05: 22
                    Comrade, please familiarize yourself with the battle at La Plata! And read what damage Exeter received from fragments alone! If the extremities were covered with at least a symbolic anti-fragmentation defense, the ship would have been much easier in that battle!

                    If the shell fragment is very large, the head part, for example, then it can penetrate quite a bit, and not spit the armored bulkhead once.
                    1. +1
                      4 October 2014 10: 27
                      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                      Comrade, please check out the battle at La Plata!

                      Do you know that Exeter is one of the first Washingtonians?
                      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                      If the shell fragment is very large, the head part, for example, then it can penetrate quite a bit, and not spit the armored bulkhead once.

                      some kind of bastard, or a cardboard Washington cruiser, but not a battleship that has one skin in 25-50 mm.
                      And at Exeter, the towers were badly damaged, but what about the Iowa towers are decently reserved.
              2. +1
                3 October 2014 20: 26
                Forget about missiles in general now! Now we are talking about comparing these battleships with its counterparts from the Second World War!

                So that he would not drown from fragments, which is similar to an unexploded rocket and they made reservations at the ends!
              3. +2
                4 October 2014 06: 26
                Quote: Kars
                it’s not shefield that it burned out from an undeveloped rocket.

                The missile pierced the 10-mm side of the destroyer under the superstructure of the main command post at altitude. 1,8 m above the waterline, flew through the galley and entered the engine room. The explosion of the remnants of rocket fuel caused a fire in the fuel tanks, which soon engulfed the entire middle part of the ship's hull. Its spread was facilitated by the drop in steam pressure and the failure of the power generators that fed the fire pumps, as well as the ignition of the interior decoration made of synthetic materials, the superstructures of the ship made of light aluminum-magnesium alloys and the sheaths of electric cables that burned like gunpowder. The premises were very quickly filled with thick poisonous smoke, and soon there was a threat of an explosion of missile and artillery ammunition. After four hours of fruitless struggle for survivability, having lost 20 people killed and 28 people wounded, the commander of "Sheffield" Captain 2nd Rank Salt gave the order: "Get off the ship!" The fire was extinguished by the ships that came to the rescue.
                Sheffield's agony lasted almost a week. An attempt to tow the ship to South Georgia Island ended in failure. Having lost her buoyancy, on May 10, Sheffield sank at a depth of 200-300 m.
          2. +3
            3 October 2014 18: 30
            The point is that large fragments can sometimes do worse than from full-fledged shells. In addition to everything, protection from shells of universal or medium caliber is needed - the battle in Tsushima showed that unprotected parts are very vulnerable to shells of small caliber , and the damage will be substantial.

            At the expense of flooding, the completely flooded tip and the water will be flush with the tank at least. And this is a very significant loss of speed and stability, and the crew will have to try hard to prevent the water from spreading further into the citadel - otherwise the ship is doomed to capsize. , you can’t forget about the extremities! No one even asks them to cover with an 300mm belt, there is not much to do!
  7. +3
    3 October 2014 11: 35
    as much as I hated the United States, but it’s worth admitting, owning 42 programmable projectiles and analog computers is a source of envy. the more proud the industriousness of Soviet ancestors, who restored our homeland from the ashes, and conquered space !!!
    and it is clear why the United States so wanted to pit Germany and the USSR. Hitler I.D.O.T.T., after Europe, it would be better to attack Africa. and brainless slaves and a whole bag of resources. I hope he doesn’t stop beating his head against the wall, from what his Germany has turned into.
  8. +8
    3 October 2014 11: 36
    Thanks to the author, great article! A sober appraisal of the ship, without indiscriminate okhali, just because it is American.
    1. typhoon7
      +2
      3 October 2014 14: 38
      I agree, although I am of course an amateur, but everything is laid out correctly on the shelves. By the way, the video is small, schemes, characteristics are not there, just beautiful. The battleship "Richelieu".
  9. +11
    3 October 2014 11: 39
    The battleships of the WWII period, in accordance with the prevailing views in the prewar years on the development of the fleets, became the main class of this period. Almost all countries participating in WWII possessed ships of this class. Great Britain, USA, Italy, Japan Germany, Soviet Union. This class was intended for military operations in the far ocean zone.
    The American Iowa-class battleships are considered one of the best in their class and the most advanced warships of the era. Although they were inferior to the Japanese Yamato in artillery caliber and armor thickness, on the whole the combination of their main combat characteristics - weapons, travel speed and protection - was more harmonious than that of any potential enemy of this class. Powerful anti-aircraft weapons, the latest fire control devices, the world's best radar stations. The probability of a purely artillery battle between battleships by the time the Iowa entered service was practically zero. By that time, the aircraft carriers were rightfully considered the main striking force, and there could be no talk of a general battle of the line squadrons. The battleships had a different task - to give combat stability to aircraft carrier formations. Battleships turned into well-protected command ships capable of becoming the center of air defense and radar for the entire formation. Artillery of the main caliber solved only auxiliary tasks, such as shelling coastal targets with the support of amphibious operations, protecting the OS from cruisers and destroyers. American shipbuilders have created the ideal ship for their operational carrier forces.
    These ships never had a chance to enter into an artillery duel with the enemy, but their biography is quite worthy. “Iowa” left for a well-deserved rest only at the age of 50, having outlived all their classmates by at least 30 years. After modernization in the 80s, they became the only missile battleships in history. It is noteworthy that all of them became floating museums and are preserved to this day !!! The history of the fleet lives on, which, unfortunately, we cannot boast of ... "Aurora" and "Mikhail Kutuzov" are all that remains of the mighty and legendary Navy ...
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 21: 19
      from Sharks you need to make a museum on the Black Sea, pull it ashore and make an entertainment park, another one to the Far East, tourists will tear such objects in photos and visits. I’m sure they will pay off. There really is something to see.
  10. +5
    3 October 2014 11: 44
    A bit on an abstract topic.
    Somehow I came across information on the characteristics of a 203 mm art installation for cruisers of the "Soviet Union" type.
    I apologize for any inaccuracies, I write from memory.
    So it was stated there that 203 mm automated guns with 1.5 times greater range and projectile power surpassed the best 152 mm ship art systems.
    And since the ships were never built, they forgot about artillery.
    It is interesting why modern ships, if possible, have effective target designation beyond the line of sight do not have art systems with a caliber above 130.
    Moreover, such a caliber allows you to shoot not only shells but also missiles.
    1. 0
      4 October 2014 13: 04
      Forced to make corrections regarding what was written, I deleted the post due to incorrectness, but for some reason it remained.
      As for the 203 mm guns of the battleships, I was mistaken, it was a heavy cruiser 22 of the project http://samlib.ru/a/andreew_f_w/42.shtml Stalingrad 1950-1951-1953 Molotovsk (Moscow), probably I read about his guns, but rather even after further elaboration of 203 mm ship’s guns already during the reign of L.I. Brezhnev.

      In the middle of the 1970-ies, the design of the 203-mm shipboard installation "Pion-M" began (not to be confused with the ACS "Pion-M", 2 С7 M, obtained in 1983 by upgrading 2 С7) based on the swinging part of 203-mm 2 А44 guns SAU "Peony". This was the Soviet response to the Mk 71. Even the number of ready-to-fire ammunition for both systems was the same - 75 shots are separate-sleeve loading. However, the Pion’s rate of fire was higher than the Mk 71. The Piona-M shooting control system was a modification of the Lion system for AK-130. In 1976 – 1979 Several reasonably substantiated justifications of the benefits of the 203-mm gun were sent to the Navy's leadership. So, for example, the size of the high-explosive projectile funnel from AK-130 was 1,6 m, and that of the Pion-M was 3,2 m. 203-mm active-reactive, cluster and guided projectiles had much greater capabilities compared to 130 mm. So, the Pion-M active-missile projectile had a range of 50 km.

      http://www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2012/08/2012_8_14.php
      You can read about the Soviet Union battleship herehttp: //www.e-reading.me/bookreader.php/1002749/Vasilev_A._-_Superlinkory_Stal
      ina._Sovetskiy_Soyuz_Kronshtadt_Stalingrad.html.
  11. +2
    3 October 2014 11: 51
    http://alternathistory.org.ua/korabelnaya-bronya-i-protivokorabelnye-rakety

    Here are some sort of showdown.
  12. Crang
    +2
    3 October 2014 11: 54
    And yet, "Yamato" with "Tirpitz" is better.
    1. +7
      3 October 2014 12: 16
      And yet, objectively, a Bismarck type LC is worse than Iow in terms of a combination of characteristics!
      1. Crang
        0
        3 October 2014 12: 30
        Exactly as a battleship i.e. for naval combat with enemy surface ships - "Tirpitz" is better. see "Second after Yamato" "on the Tsushima forums. And already there are guys in the subject.
        1. +7
          3 October 2014 14: 10
          Wangard is praised on Tsushima, with relatively modest dimensions they had one of the thickest PTZs, and the reservation is better than Iowa with adequate weapons.
          The French were also better off than Iowa.
          Iowa, due to its design, was not wide enough for an adequate structural protection device, and was very vulnerable to any battleships of that time, representing a target 50% larger. Reverse vulnerability was not so obvious.
          If you take Yamato, then he had an OMS with a unique 15-meter range finder, and in fine weather he could very accurately adjust the firing at ranges up to 35 km.
          The Italians had the most ugly artillery and PTZ, so they drop out in comparisons at an early stage.
          1. +6
            3 October 2014 15: 37
            I will express my opinion.
            Was Iowa the best, most balanced, most powerful ... I think not.
            But ... There were significant differences between the theaters of the Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic. The main threat in the Atlantic was the submarine, in the Pacific - aircraft.
            Yamato is undoubtedly the most powerful LC. But ... for the Atlantic. Iowa is not for the Atlantic.
            And the Yankees are right about that. Yapy are not Germans ... Acted, in fact, by the same methods as the Americans. And that means - the main threat is the aviation of Japan. And then Iowa is on top. And no one can compare with her.
            What is controversial about it: The range is half the equator. Considering that it was not intended for solo sailing, and the order of other marathon runners was not supposed, all the same, supply vessels had to be dragged (and protected). So - "mazutovoz" (by analogy with a water carrier). Accordingly - excess EI and VI.
            But ... That's actually all ... Yes, passive protection and unsinkability are not Iowa's strong points. But, in the conditions of the TTVD, the threats were assessed correctly. And the increase in combat stability was supposed to be due to the "smart" and numerous artillery of the Criminal Code.
            The use of all these "cleverness" ... Is it effective - I think not. The ABM prototype - the maximum - made it possible to "compensate" for the possible inexperience of the crews, and even then not for all conditions. And the "anti-aircraft" successes are more related to the unprecedented density of fire (especially in the composition of the warrant) than "cleverness".
            Bottom line: Wildly expensive (except that Yamato) - well, they could afford it, a relatively weakly protected LC, not intended for "duels" - determined the development of the World fleets. Since gave impetus to the development of "smart" and effective weapons. And he proved that "duels" to win in the company are not effective and unnecessary.
            1. +1
              3 October 2014 22: 59
              Quote: mpa945
              Was Iowa the best, most balanced, most powerful ... I think not.

              Your conclusion, dear, is made under the influence of anti-American sentiment

              Purely technical, Iowa was ideally suited to any theater for half a century.
              Quote: mpa945
              Yamato - undoubtedly the most powerful LK

              Moreover, it is 1,5 times larger than Iowa.

              Although not the most balanced one - the useless SK towers (which were removed by the end of the war), the shortest stronghold, powerful but far from the most effective GK shells, big problems with air defense, the problem with armor steel (deficiency of alloying additives), a strong lag in the radar area - this by the middle of 40's was no longer forgiven.
              Quote: mpa945
              anyway supply vessels carry

              Filling One Iowa - Like 16 Destroyers
              roughly xnumx tons vs xnumx xnumx
              Quote: mpa945
              The use of all these "cleverness" ... Is it effective - I think not

              It must be compared with the successes of ships of other countries
              1. +2
                4 October 2014 10: 01
                Your conclusion, dear, is made under the influence of anti-American sentiment
                Oleg! Yes, I consider Americans to be enemies, but ... not downs.
                Purely technical, Iowa was ideally suited to any theater for half a century.
                Apparently, unlike you, the Yankees are "American haters" smile ... But rather realists, which cannot be taken away from them. Not a single Iowa, either as part of a warrant or from AB, accompanied the "northern convoys". IMHO - THEY understood that in the North Atlantic, even with the help of radars and computers, shooting at periscopes is not comme il faut! Well, not against torpedoes and mines, they sharpened their LK.
                An example of Yamato ... I agree completely. Moreover, unlike the Yankees, Yapi are not that incompetent engineers ... But in strategy and tactics ... Two Yamata against the Amer fleet were much less than Tirpitz and Bismarck against the Naglov. IMHO - several dozen submarines and "Akisuk" smile - The sense is more useful to the economy.
                To beat the Americans with their own weapons is not real either then or later. hi To do this, we need an appropriate economy.
                And it doesn't matter if Iowa was "very, very" or not. You think that it was - I don't think so. But SHE was conceived and implemented strictly in the strategic system of forces, and its strength is in this system. And it is precisely in the systematic nature of the strength of the Americans, both then and now. Well, "SUPER WEAPON" does not exist. Alas...
                1. +2
                  5 October 2014 06: 10
                  Quote: mpa945
                  Not a single Iowa, either as part of the warrant or from AB, accompanied the "northern convoys"

                  "Washington" accompanied and nothing bad happened to him
                  Quote: mpa945
                  Well, not against torpedoes and mines, they honed their LCs.

                  And where are the boats?
                  What could the steel coffins of Doenitz do to a high-speed battleship? Like the battleship boats.
                  Battleships were sent to sowing. the Atlantic to counter Tirpitz
                  Quote: mpa945
                  But it was conceived and implemented strictly in a strategic system of forces,

                  Beautiful, but alas, meaningless words.
            2. +1
              6 October 2014 17: 44
              Quote: mpa945
              And the Yankees are right about that. Yapy are not Germans ... Acted, in fact, by the same methods as the Americans. And that means - the main threat is the aviation of Japan. And then Iowa is on top

              If the Americans hadn’t invented a cheap radio fuse, their air defense would have been modest in terms of armament at 76 mm rapid. The fate of the guns without such a fuse was an almost inaccurate setting of curtains. Like the Japanese. In fact, at the time the battleship was created, the attacking dive could be shot down after the load was dropped. The rest of the competitors were even better with this. The English universal caliber was very even at the level + a wide variety of calibers and settings, for every taste. Japanese 100 mm towers were generally out of competition. The German 105mm gun was also better.
              Without a radio fuse, the American 5-inch was technically Minisini.
            3. 0
              6 October 2014 17: 44
              Quote: mpa945
              And the Yankees are right about that. Yapy are not Germans ... Acted, in fact, by the same methods as the Americans. And that means - the main threat is the aviation of Japan. And then Iowa is on top

              If the Americans hadn’t invented a cheap radio fuse, their air defense would have been modest in terms of armament at 76 mm rapid. The fate of the guns without such a fuse was an almost inaccurate setting of curtains. Like the Japanese. In fact, at the time the battleship was created, the attacking dive could be shot down after the load was dropped. The rest of the competitors were even better with this. The English universal caliber was very even at the level + a wide variety of calibers and settings, for every taste. Japanese 100 mm towers were generally out of competition. The German 105mm gun was also better.
              Without a radio fuse, the American 5-inch was technically Minisini.
          2. 0
            3 October 2014 23: 06
            Quote: goose
            Wangard is praised on Tsushima, with relatively modest dimensions they had one of the thickest PTZs, and the reservation is better than Iowa with adequate weapons

            about the modest dimensions you are in vain - they are the same size with Iowa
            Despite the fact that Wangard was late for at least 3-4 of the year. Something completed to 1946

            About his armament - the impoverished British empire could not create new guns, it was necessary to arm the battleship with old towers that had been in the warehouse since the 20's (4X2 381 mm)

            There were many radars - 40 pieces, but AFTER the war.

            The only useful feature is the numerous anti-shatter bulkheads in the superstructure instead of the conning tower. Practice has shown that this is important.

            Wangard never participated in battles at all (many here like to remember that Iowa was sunk by a destroyer, transport and trawler)
        2. The comment was deleted.
  13. +3
    3 October 2014 11: 57
    Excellent article. Everything is perfectly stated. From myself I will add that all 4 battleships are still alive and, if they wish, can come back into operation.
    1. +1
      3 October 2014 18: 14
      Agree to 100% !!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  14. Bathk
    +2
    3 October 2014 12: 03
    Yeah Giants have amers blood, but ... a big ship - a big torpedo
  15. +2
    3 October 2014 13: 18
    A very interesting article. But judging from the aesthetic point of view, so for me, "Bismarck" is more beautiful
  16. +5
    3 October 2014 13: 39
    This is what the theme means - a favorite horse. I just crushed the preceding "dry analytics" with literary material, it's nice to read. And the passage about the construction of a line of capital-class ships in the midst of the war is also true (and in addition to them, the Americans also built over to the hell of ships). No, one can, of course, dispute the article, one can criticize, but one cannot but respect the point of view arguably and reasonably defended by the author for many years.
    From SW. hi
  17. Tsar Simeon
    0
    3 October 2014 14: 14
    It is a pity that the Soviet Union did not have time to create such battleships and battlecruisers to compare them with the best.
  18. +2
    3 October 2014 14: 29
    all are beautiful and very expensive toys, but don’t tell, the Americans know how to keep the fleet in reserve, not to match our reserves, and it’s true, how not to believe !!!!
  19. +1
    3 October 2014 14: 38
    Out of topic
    Admiral Gorshkov at the demagnetization site.
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 17: 07
      wait a long time !!
  20. +3
    3 October 2014 14: 46
    to give an example of a battle in Casablanca between the jean bar and the massachusetts is not entirely correct, the jean bar could not be considered a full-fledged combat unit since it was not completed and did not have the gk system in full. moreover, the bar was stationary and damaged by aviation
    1. -1
      3 October 2014 22: 45
      Quote: sanya0974
      jean bar could not be considered a full-fledged military unit

      What difference does it make if we talk about the destructive effect of a shell on armor

      Consider that the Yankees have tested their "suitcases" in the field conditions - the result is obvious: 4 direct hits disable a battleship of the "Richelieu" class.
      Quote: sanya0974
      and did not have a gk system in full

      If he had - he had come full zizdets
      The fourth Amer shell penetrated the cellar of the stern towers of SK, fortunately the French were empty
  21. +5
    3 October 2014 15: 00
    Oleg in his style is well written, but the facts are interpreted in a way that suits him personally. Let's get together that Iowa is a good type for its time, not carrying anything radically new and breakthrough. In addition to the LMS, they are not significantly ahead of their contemporaries, and the design flaws, although present, are not critical and are largely compensated or due to the tactics of application and the conditions of the main theater.
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 18: 10
      I also thought so. All the shortcomings described in the article are non-critical for marine
      fight
      Well, the speed is not high, well, the range is not the entire equator, but a half-equator.
      The main thing for which the battleships were built - the main caliber guns and their LMS - are good.
      Booking is not super, but adequate. The battleship could complete its task.
    2. -1
      3 October 2014 22: 40
      Quote: MooH
      In addition to the LMS, they are not significantly ahead of their contemporaries

      What does "essential" mean?

      GK artillery - caliber, number of barrels, turret placement, b / c ... Only Yamato is inferior in power. All sorts of European Bismarcks, Richelieu and Littorio did not stand nearby.
      Speed ​​is higher than any battleship.
      Maneuverability is higher.
      Autonomy - up to 1,5-2 times.
      An anomalously powerful and long, layered GEM - figs with it, with speed, but how did it affect survivability? wink
      Air defense - quantity and quality, no analogues
      Habitability standards - surprised even the British

      Perfect compliance with the terms of the theater of war, 50 years of military service - to the forefront of technological progress in any era. When the enemy had guns and piston aircraft, the Yankees had Mk.53. When the enemy got anti-ship missiles and jet aircraft, Iow already had Tomahawks.
  22. +7
    3 October 2014 15: 07
    So in order. 1) Having declassified the reservation data, the Americans have not yet declassified the Iow range data. Do you still believe that they could go on an 15000 mile? Maybe they were diesel engines? This is the only way at that time to provide a range of the order of 11-12000 miles.
    Let's wait when they declassify. I think the figure will be half as much.
    2) Calling American shells "with mini radars" is from the evil one. With a radio fuse, this is how it sounds since the late forties in our country. This is how it sounds in German too. Agree "mini radar" sounds cool. It seems to be aiming at the target. In fact, it just explodes when the target is nearby, but the Germans also had radio fuses during the war. They were developed by us. I think in the UK they could even be put into the series during the same period. But, probably, there was no such need, and she suffered in the war.
    3) Taking the effectiveness of each anti-aircraft gun with conventional shells "1", the German "Bismarck" scored sixteen points (16 SK.C / 33 105 mm guns). "Iowa" - a hundred! (20 five-inch guns firing Mk.53 b / p.) A funny and at the same time frightening conclusion: the effectiveness of long-range air defense of American battleships was at least six times higher than that of any of their European and Japanese peers.
    Where does the data come from? Who calculated? Americans?)))) How? I ask in the studio.
    In addition, that the survivability of Japanese aircraft was lower than English or German, I spoke in the comments of the previous article. So, to evaluate the superiority of Iowa at Bismarck in 6,5 times is ridiculous))))
    About the fire control system. She was probably good. It is only in the previous articles that the opinion of an English sailor was mentioned that these guns could only conduct defensive fire, and the radar at large moves was not always efficient. Everything should be balanced and workable. And having created an excellent fire control system and armed the ship with "ZENITKAMI" with a barrel of 38 calibers !!!! efficiency is impossible. As an engineer I say. Calculations by calculations, but cut down the radar and that's it ...
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 22: 22
      Quote: qwert
      still believe that they could go on an 15000 mile?

      And what is this?
      Normal range at 15 knot cruising for such a large ship, where the task of increased autonomy was specifically set
      Quote: qwert
      With a radio fuse, so it sounds from the late forties in our country. So it sounds in German.

      In the Yankees it sounded from the beginning of the forties
      Quote: qwert
      "mini radar" sounds cool. It seems to be aimed at the target. In fact, it just explodes when the target is nearby

      It seems - cross yourself. the shell is not an anti-aircraft missile.

      Radar (and it was precisely a portable radar) - allowed the projectile to determine the distance to the target and undermine warheads at the most favorable moment.
      Quote: qwert
      the survivability of Japanese aircraft was lower than English or German, I said in comments

      So you shamelessly lied, dear

      British Fairey Swordfish damaged Bismarck


      Nakajima B5N2 "Kate"


      Why is the plywood Suorfish survivability higher than that of the Japanese Keith?
      Quote: qwert
      Where does the data come from? Who calculated? Americans?)))) How? I ask in the studio.

      Of course the Yankees, because only they had such systems
      1. +2
        3 October 2014 23: 20
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: qwert
        the survivability of Japanese aircraft was lower than English or German, I said in comments

        So you shamelessly lied, dear


        The survivability seemed to be really lower - Compared to Western aircraft, the Zero did not have an armored backrest for the pilot's seat and protected (capable of tightening bullet holes) fuel tanks, which reduced its resistance to combat damage. The power set of aircraft was made of aluminum-magnesium alloy (the so-called "Extra Super Dural"), which was lighter and stronger than ordinary duralumin, but also more fragile.
        Japanese ace Saburo Sakai recalled:
        “I was completely confident in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to shoot down the enemy fighter using only 7,7 mm machine guns. I turned the 20 mm gun switch to the off position and approached. For some unknown reason, even after I fired five hundred or six hundred bullets directly at the Grumman, the plane did not crash and continued to fly. I thought it was very strange - this had never happened before. I began to reduce the distance between the planes until, as it seemed, I could reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the rudder and tail turned into rags and looked like an old holey piece of rag. It is not surprising that with the aircraft in this state, the pilot could not continue the fight. A “Zero” that received so many bullets would turn into a ball of fire.
        1. -2
          3 October 2014 23: 40
          Quote: sevtrash
          - Compared to Western aircraft, the Zero did not have an armored backrest for the pilot's seat and protected (capable of tightening bullet holes) fuel tanks

          Did the awkward slow biplane have?
          and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the rudder and tail turned into rags and looked like an old holey piece of rag.

          Bismarck was attacked not by Grumman, but by plywood Swordfish
      2. +2
        3 October 2014 23: 26
        About the deck bomber - Aichi D3A - Despite all the improvements, the D3A1 still had many shortcomings, which could be eliminated only by a radical modification of the aircraft, work on which began immediately after the first modification was put into production. By June 1942, the D3A2 Model 12 was ready, equipped with a 54-hp Mitsubishi Kinsei 1300 engine, but installing the more powerful motor alone did not solve all the D3A problems. As a result, the company introduced a significantly improved version of the D3A2 Model 22, which was characterized by the installation of additional fuel tanks and the lightening of the machine, achieved by the rejection of armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. All this allowed to increase the maximum speed of the car by 40 km / h, but a more powerful engine reduced the flight range by more than 100 km.
  23. +3
    3 October 2014 15: 12
    By speed.
    For battleships such as Iowa, indicated is indicated everywhere, and no mention is made of the speed shown on the measured mile. But the real speed of the ship is determined on a measured mile (if only because the dependence of the speed of the ship on the power of the machines is recognized empirically!). Any statement of the type “at a machine power of X hp and with a displacement of Y tons, the battleship will develop a speed of Z knots ”- nothing more than an advertisement. Let’s leave the daily service, maybe there really weren’t any records, but didn’t the New Jersey have the other three ships passed sea trials for more than 60-year service? After dock repairs and depreservation ?? Not tested for forcing machines ??? Obviously, they passed and tested, but there are no results in open sources. In the meantime, we just have USS BB-62, such as Iowa, with the power of 221 000 hp machines. (which is higher than design - 212 000 hp) developed on testing 31,9 node.
    In addition, speed up more, even if forcing, the Americans would have trumpeted this around the world. You know their specifics. Announce all the achievements, and if they are not, then come up with.
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 22: 05
      Quote: qwert
      , speed up more, even if forcing, the Americans would have trumpeted this around the world. You know their specifics. Announce all the achievements, and if they are not, then come up with.

      More like kremlezhulikov)))
  24. +2
    3 October 2014 15: 31
    Quote: moremansf
    These ships never happened to enter into an artillery duel with the enemy, but their biography is quite worthy.

    Exactly ... Worthy ...)))))) Four battleships of the Iowa type account for the sinking of three ships - an armed trawler, destroyer and training ship. In at least one case out of three, participation was only moral, as other formation ships directly fired and drowned.
    1. -1
      3 October 2014 22: 01
      Quote: qwert
      Exactly ... Worthy ...

      World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq-91


      Tomahawk!

      Quote: qwert
      Four battleships of the Iowa type account for the sinking of three ships - an armed trawler

      It’s to blame for the fact that almost the entire Japanese fleet killed submarines and aircraft

      The gunners had a different task - to destroy the defensive perimeter on the islands of the Pacific Ocean
      The first attacks on the Kwajalein Atoll began on 29 on January, and the North Caroline launched a bombardment of the islands of Roy and Namur entering the atoll. On the way to Roy from the battleship they noticed a transport standing in the lagoon, through which they immediately gave several volleys, which caused fires from bow to stern. After the Japanese runways were disabled, the battleship fired at designated targets at night and the next day, while simultaneously covering aircraft carriers that supported the landing of troops on neighboring islets
  25. +3
    3 October 2014 15: 50
    And I remembered where the battleship like Iowa distinguished itself in the action movie with Seagal when he kind of sank our submarine, that's probably all of his achievements
  26. +1
    3 October 2014 16: 31
    What a pity that history did not give us a chance to finish building the "Soviet Union" and other ships of the large fleet. How does he compare to Iowa? Well, if you don't compare computers?
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 21: 53
      Quote: Shustov
      How does he compare to Iowa?

      late for xnumx years
  27. +1
    3 October 2014 16: 38
    As a final product, Iowa is one of the best 2MV battleships. But as the author of the previous article wrote, if we compare purely by iron, then Iowa does not stand out from the set of pre-war Europeans except autonomy and air defense, to say nothing of Yamato (who also had the best range finder in the class).
  28. +3
    3 October 2014 16: 51
    Well, who would doubt ... the fact that in the topic about the battleships Kaptsov and Iowa could be noted could be sure just like in the daily sunrise and sunset. hi

    However, all the "pro and contra" are so blurred that I probably will soon even stop reading it.
    "there is no gold in the gray mountains, and there never was" (c) A. Sapkovsky.
  29. 0
    3 October 2014 17: 08
    I personally saw this fool in 1989 in the Baltic impressed, especially the main caliber shooting. The commanders told us that we would only beat them with glass on the chassis. Could build. It’s a pity that our people were cut long before the Americans did.
    1. +3
      3 October 2014 19: 03
      Quote: IGMIT
      I personally saw this fool in 1989 in the Baltic impressed, especially the main caliber shooting. The commanders told us that we would only beat them with glass on the chassis. Could build. It’s a pity that our people were cut long before the Americans did.

      What kind fool, please explain?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  30. +6
    3 October 2014 17: 09
    One message of the author is very interesting: while everyone who got involved in the war drowned each other in blood (not in water), namely: the Reich, Albion, the USSR (we generally had no time for ocean-going proportions at that time), Italy , pieces of France here and there, not knowing where to intern, China in all its dismantlings, and, of course, Japan; at this time, only the USA found both the resources and the time to build battleships. The resulting battleships are not bad. And all the rest - it was not up to the battleships, to save those two or three that they managed to get to the dump. Now we compare what was then with what is now. The comparison results are obvious.
    1. 0
      3 October 2014 20: 47
      Despite all these battleships, they were caught up everywhere, wherever they popped. Why's that?...
    2. 0
      3 October 2014 20: 47
      Despite all these battleships, they were caught up everywhere, wherever they popped. Why's that?...
    3. +1
      4 October 2014 09: 57
      I agree. Having huge resources and starting construction already during the war, the boat turned out to be not the most outstanding. And in a duel (subject to the same SLAs, crew training and radars), it is still unknown how he would have shown himself even with old people like Bismarck, Reshchelle, Wengard or even King George 5.
  31. 0
    3 October 2014 20: 43
    In the 80s, I read about these battleships in the Foreign Military Review .. According to the anti-torpedo protection, it said that the battleship is able to stay afloat while 10 (!) Torpedoes hit it. I just don’t remember, according to the meaning of the article, such survivability was laid down initially or with some modernization ..
  32. 0
    3 October 2014 21: 10
    But I found this article: http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1987/0106.htm
  33. +1
    3 October 2014 22: 31
    Quote: carbofo
    A bit on an abstract topic.
    Somehow I came across information on the characteristics of a 203 mm art installation for cruisers of the "Soviet Union" type.
    I apologize for any inaccuracies, I write from memory.
    So it was stated there that 203 mm automated guns with 1.5 times greater range and projectile power surpassed the best 152 mm ship art systems.
    And since the ships were never built, they forgot about artillery.
    It is interesting why modern ships, if possible, have effective target designation beyond the line of sight do not have art systems with a caliber above 130.
    Moreover, such a caliber allows you to shoot not only shells but also missiles.

    Sorry, but there were no 8 inches in the project of the battleship "Soviet Union". 16 inches - main caliber, 6 - medium caliber and 100-mm - long-range air defense. Post-war TK "Stalingrad" too, 12-inch main tank, and 130-mm - station wagons.
    And about modern, alas, rockets defeated the barrel artillery.
  34. dipqrer
    0
    3 October 2014 23: 21
    It would be interesting to see how these magnificent ships withstand the impact of Type93 torpedoes?
  35. PM9mm
    +1
    4 October 2014 19: 15
    In short, one was groaning, the other was praising the term "superlinkor"! Objectivity is not and cannot be, because battleships are not tanks and there are almost no statistics of their clashes with each other. It seems to me that the question here is not whether a particular type of battleship is good or bad, almost any of them could destroy another with a successful hit. The question is whether the class of these ships is good or bad, for the construction of which huge financial and labor resources were spent, which would be enough to build an entire fleet, and they were often destroyed quite effectively.
    1. 0
      5 October 2014 02: 19
      Quote: PM9mm
      and they were destroyed, often quite effectively.

      And here from here in more detail!
  36. +1
    5 October 2014 01: 26
    It's a shame to admit that "Iowa" all battleships battleships. To alleviate the bitterness of the fact that the Yankees again have the best, it is imperative to find a couple of flaws in Iowa.


    I wanted to give the article a plus, but now I doubt it ...
  37. +1
    5 October 2014 15: 12
    Interesting about anti-aircraft artillery. Now it is more clear to me why most Japanese kamikazes could not break through to American ships. And, for example, a torpedo biplane was able to break through to Bismarck! And remained intact. Very interesting.
    1. +2
      6 October 2014 11: 02
      Bismarck was alone, and American battleships always sailed with a flock of destroyers and cruisers.
  38. +1
    6 October 2014 17: 02
    For me, of course, the combat longevity of "Iowa" is amazing hi Managing to shoot effectively in the age of rocket ships is cool!
  39. 0
    7 October 2014 11: 24
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Bismarck was attacked not by Grumman, but by plywood Swordfish

    Well that you really are. Did Bismarck attack only plywood Swordfish. And no one else? Did they sink Tirpitz too?
    Quote: Ro-Man
    In the 80's, I read about these battleships in the Foreign Military Review .. According to the anti-torpedo protection, it said that the battleship is able to stay afloat while 10 (!) Torpedoes hit.

    I read similar and 80's and then in the two thousandth. To be precise, it was universally agreed that 10-12 torpedoes of the 530mm caliber or 2-3 torpedoes of the 650mm caliber are required to sink a large ship such as an aircraft carrier / battleship.
    And do not forget that the torpedo cruisers of Japan had 650mm torpedoes. So Iowa really took a chance. Or rather, designers who ignored this
    1. 0
      8 October 2014 06: 33
      Quote: qwert
      Did Bismarck attack only plywood Swordfish. And no one else?

      And what does this have to do with the air defense issue?

      We have a fact: German air defense did not even cope with a slow whatnot. And the vitality of this whatnot was no higher than that of Japanese aircraft.

      And in general, your attempt to write off the effectiveness of amerskoy air defense on the "low survivability of Japanese aircraft" looks unconvincing
      Quote: qwert
      So Iowa really took a chance. Or rather, designers who ignored this

      What should they do? To pit the 20-meter PTZ?

      In fact, the PTZ of none of the aircraft could withstand the declared "300 kg TNT" - each meeting with a torpedo led to the flooding of a number of compartments. This is normal. Underwater explosions are too destructive. Pressurized compartments and crew actions play an important role
  40. 0
    3 November 2014 12: 38
    The death of BISMARK showed that the age of battleships is over.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"