Ship shots

Disturbing flare in your gloomy face, hot cry: “Open fire!”

Educational and entertaining article about the beauty and capabilities of the naval fleet.

The destroyer “Fast” shoots “Mosquito”. Strategic command and staff exercises “Vostok-2014”.

The large distance from which this image was taken hides the actual dimensions of the rocket. The length of the “Mosquito” - 9 meters. Starting weight - 4 tons.

Three-sweep anti-ship munition, which received the NATO designation "Sunburn" ("sunburn"). Equipped with a marching ramjet engine. Even today, “Mosquito” continues to pose a threat to any adversary. None of the American Aegis is able to intercept such a goal, all hope is only for EW funds.

In continuation of the KSHU “Vostok-2014" chronicle. Start-up of the RCC "Granit" from the underwater position from the submarine of the 949А submarine.

Shooting dipole reflectors from the side of the BOD “Admiral Panteleyev”.

In battle, the “bad weather division.” Small rocket ship "Smerch" puts passive interference.

The Chinese destroyer Harbin is firing from the 100 mm AU PJ-33A. Joint Russian-Chinese exercises in the Yellow Sea “Sea Interaction-2012”.

Promotional poster of the Indian Navy. Frigates of the Talvar type are firing from jet bomb bombs (RBU-6000). “Talvary” is an export version of the Russian frigate Ave 11356.

And this is not a joke. Missile cruiser “Philippines C” shoots at positions of ISIS. September 2014 of the Year, Red Sea.

The start-up booster throws the Tomahawk up 1000 feet. There, on the descending branch of the ballistic trajectory, the air intake of the main engine moves forward, the rocket spreads short wings and rests on the combat course.

... Under the wing, the coastline was curved - the Battle Ax arrived in the area of ​​primary correction. TERCOM and DSMAC guidance systems are activated, the radar and optical sensors carefully “feel” the terrain. Having compared the data with satellite images, the Tomahawk waved the short surfaces of the rudders and rushed in the direction of the chosen target ...

Where without large-caliber "bombard"! Winter 1991 of the Year, “Missouri” gut Iraqi shores.

The average range of battleship shots during Operation Desert Storm was 35 kilometers.

The explosion of the 862-kg high-explosive projectile Mk.13 created 15-meter crater 6 meters deep. Vietnam veterans recalled how a blast wave cleared a “spot” in the jungle with a radius of 180 meters suitable for landing a helicopter.

At a distance of 20 kilometers, the 1225-kg armor-piercing “suitcase” Mk.8 APС could penetrate half a meter of steel armor or over six meters of reinforced concrete - no fortification could stand up to the power of 406 mm guns.

By analyzing the videotapes, Iowa could have made the main caliber an hour before 1000 shots. Such a density of fire corresponded to the wings of two aircraft carriers.

The battleship “New Jersey” shelled Korea. 1953 year

In battle - the Albany missile cruiser! Built at the very end of World War II, the Albany was completely rebuilt into a rocket ship. A real masterpiece of steam-punk: boilers and radars, decorated with 40-meter mach-pipes and five rocket systems.

Another retro photo from 60's. The destroyer “Aberholm” zhahnul special ammunition.

Her Majesty's fighting dragon. Shot of the destroyer air defense "Dragon".

Anti-sabotage means of the frigate “Cornwell”. Persian Gulf. The installation itself is a classic “Oerlikon” on a modern carriage.

Exit the “Tomahawk” from the bow of the destroyer “Farragut”.

The launch of the SM-3 space interceptor from the Japanese destroyer Congo, 2007 year.

Comments

[Serg65]

Greetings, Oleg . Well, here you are, and we are engaged in the usual business . You have excellent naval reviews, much better than historical opuses.

[mirag2]

Freaky beauties ...
The deeds of your hands are terrible, man.

[Pal2004]

Nice essay ... thanks to the author.

[sanja.grw]

Another retro photo from 60's. The destroyer “Aberholm” zhahnul special ammunition.

Interestingly, and what kind of special ammunition is this

[bolat19640303]

Quote: sanja.grw

Another retro photo from 60's. The destroyer “Aberholm” zhahnul special ammunition.

Interestingly, and what kind of special ammunition is this

Nuclear weapon explosion.

[kuz363]

Yes, a nuclear explosion is called that.

[VohaAhov]

There is no caption under the first photo. And this is our pride and beauty - the Varyag guards missile cruiser fires from a 130 mm artillery mount.

[inkass_98]

Oleg, thanks. Well, in the subject:

And more:
Well, since such a booze has gone , our long-suffering "Kashtan":

[ICT]

add a little

.....

[ICT]

.................

[ICT]

..........

[Fotoceva62]

... By analyzing the videos, it was established: “Iowa” could make up to 1000 rounds of main caliber in an hour ...

From the region ... if my grandmother was a grandfather ... that is 111 shots in 60 minutes or almost 2 shots per minute. I had to upset the author - I couldn’t.
There is such a thing as the gun’s thermal regime, which for the Russian 304,8 / 52 gun is about 30 rounds per hour, then about the same time for cooling, I don’t remember the numbers exactly since I read the gun’s form for a long time (30 battery, Sevastopol) barrel survivability without loss accuracy of 100 shots with deep cutting of guns (up to -10% of Vach. 762 m / s)
And yes, rate of fire is not analyzed by video recordings. The Iowa offshore turret installations have very primitive projectile delivery systems, which raises doubts about the officially declared rate of fire especially on pitching.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Fotoceva62

And yes, the rate of fire is not analyzed by video.

Iowa Shooting Rate - By Video

Quote: Fotoceva62

“Iowa” offshore turret installations are very primitive projectile systems, which is in doubt in officially stated rate of fire especially on pitching.

No official data
They were classified

Quote: Fotoceva62

that is, 111 shots in 60 minutes or almost 2 shots per minute. I had to upset the author - I couldn’t.

Wow, Tennessee (1917 year) shot like a volcano
Iowa (1943) couldn't

photo - Tennessee is supporting the landing in Okinawa with fire. During the fighting "Tennessee" brought down 1490 356-mm shells on the island

[Arseny]

Well, it depends on how you look at it. First of all, do not forget how many main battery towers were in Iowa - 3 towers with 3 guns each for a total of 9 barrels. I don't know the rate of fire, but I'm sure it's high enough. For example, I can give our light control cruiser "Admiral Senyavin" KTOF which served as an urgent. Of course the main caliber was smaller, but also not sour 152 mm. Rate of fire in the region of 4 seconds. I served in the DUK (universal caliber division) 100 mm. We fired a shot in 3.5 seconds. The main caliber with its separate loading, in principle, kept a comparable rate of fire. Of course, they rarely fired at such a rate, but it happened. By the way, the trunks were old with a long expired resource. Yes, and we also had an explosion in the main tower (as in Iowa, only before) By the way, the reason is the same. So Iowa could fire 1000 shots in an hour, it's quite possible.

[opus]

Quote: Arseny

Well, this is how to look. Firstly, do not forget how many towers of the main caliber were on Iowa - 3 towers of 3 guns in each total 9 barrels.

?
For the entire (!) War (2МВ) Iowa spat 2300 shells (+/-)
For the entire (!) Korean company around 4300 (+/-)
Divide by time - get an average rate of fire (taking into account the survivability of the trunk)


1000 shots per minute ("on video") is akin to cretinism


Bugatti Veyron (according to video), briefly accelerates ("from left to right") to 434,211 km / h and WHAT?
1 (at least one) hour he will travel at such a speed?

[Yuri from Volgograd]

Quote: opus

Quote: Arseny

Well, this is how to look. Firstly, do not forget how many towers of the main caliber were on Iowa - 3 towers of 3 guns in each total 9 barrels.

?
For the entire (!) War (2МВ) Iowa spat 2300 shells (+/-)
For the entire (!) Korean company around 4300 (+/-)
Divide by time - get an average rate of fire (taking into account the survivability of the trunk)


1000 shots per minute ("on video") is akin to cretinism


Bugatti Veyron (according to video), briefly accelerates ("from left to right") to 434,211 km / h and WHAT?
1 (at least one) hour he will travel at such a speed?

Well, here is the peak of reasoning.
Everything is correct, an example that is necessary)
Your truth, both there and there in an hour the resource will most likely end ...

[ICT]

Spoken near future

[Throw]

Laser guns generally have an unclear future:
- beyond a few kilometers ineffective due to the absorption of the beam in the atmosphere, even with perfect air purity
- energies devour like a destroyer
- no rate of fire.

In a clear weather video from a ship in calm weather, non-maneuvering low-speed unprotected targets were shot. Such weather conditions are rare, and such real anti-ship targets are not found at all!
Any anti-aircraft machine will cope with this faster, cheaper, more reliable and in any weather.
Ammunition with programmable detonation is still being actively introduced, which increases the density of the damaging elements on the target at times.

[YaMZ-238]

Wonderful photos !!!

[sub307]

An interesting selection. Thank.

[okroshka79]

To begin with, there is no command "Open fire!" On the ships of our Navy. There is a command (for rocket and artillery weapons) “Execute ours!” And to continue, I don’t understand in any way, the author wanted to praise NATO weapons? - separately, more than theirs separately. Moreover, our naval missile and artillery weapons are in no way inferior to the Western ones or anyone else in their power and variety. would be, in my opinion, more interesting. ”The author would have to move to the" Censor ", IMHO.

[ICT]

Quote: okroshka79

It's time for the author to move to the "Censor", IMHO.

I want to attach one video, but for now I’ll try to explain in words

Oleg wrote so many articles about our Navy, WHAT YOU HAVE, you won’t get so many comments,


and so that the words do not diverge from the case tomorrow, we are waiting for an article from you about our Navy with NOT trivial comments

ps

Quote: okroshka79

there is no command "Open fire!" There is a command (for rocket and artillery weapons) "Execute ours!"

not naval, of course, and certainly not BCH-2, but to my mind the command sounds like "destroy the target", although I'm waiting for clarifications

[gosha1970]

this is it about the flag semaphore. Naturally, the commander of the BC-2 or the divisional one does not sound "ours to execute".

[AID.S]

And because, whatever one may say, the West is ahead of us in armaments, in technology, in production, in the introduction of scientific developments. And this is a reason for some to shout about polymers, for others - about "all the same, our hats are the coolest", for others -

[kapitan281271]

Sorry that is not the topic, but here now, as I understand it, there are people who have some relation to the Navy, have long been interested in the question of anti-ship missiles "Granit" all in the dustbin of history? That there is absolutely no need for this car, or there is no possibility for its modernization? It's just a pity, such power!

[kirpich]

The explosion of the 862-kg high-explosive projectile Mk.13 created 15-meter crater 6 meters deep. Vietnam veterans recalled how a blast wave cleared a “spot” in the jungle with a radius of 180 meters suitable for landing a helicopter.

Then I thought

[metallic]

By analyzing the video recordings it was established: “Iowa” could fire up to 1000 shots in an hour

An interesting way to determine the rate of fire. Hourly video recording?

Such a density of fire corresponded to the wings of two aircraft carriers.

Does the lesion range also match?

[okroshka79]

Dear TIT! It is very commendable that you are protecting your idol. I, too, treat Oleg Kaptsov with respect, at least for the fact that with his articles he arouses interest in the readers of this site and thus generates a great discussion. Although I criticize often. Undoubtedly, Oleg Kaptsov has a huge store of knowledge about the ships of the navies, in my opinion much more than most of the naval officers, for which he is honored and praised. But the point is different. A ship officer must know a huge number of regulatory documents on the combat use and operation of weapons and vehicle equipment, guidance documents on combat training and organization of service, the Ship's Regulations and a huge number of any manuals, instructions, knowledge of the theater and its navigation equipment, a potential enemy and more God knows which of the general ship governing documents, since he is responsible with giblets for everything that is in his compartment or at his combat posts (KKR, RBZh, PEEK, REMKUS and God knows how many different things). And you also need to fulfill the weekly daily routine, the delivery of coursework tasks (one K-1 is worth it!), To be on duty and watch, garrison detachments, to take the F-1 25 astronomical tasks or fight off the F-chemist with his tasks on the RL-1 and still the devil knows what and to whom you have to, to fight off any countless checks of the headquarters of the formations and naval directorates. Therefore, objectively, a ship's officer has plenty to read, study, memorize with a huge amount of different information. In addition, conducting classes, exercises and drills, endless cleaning of snow from the upper deck and on the berth in winter, caring for the ship's hull, re-mooring, etc. pulling from one berth to another. Troubleshooting your favorite hardware. Etc. etc. And the naval officer has no time to find out, for example, what kind of booking was applied on the Iowa LC. Better to sneak in someone else's cabin for an hour, if you are not shaken out of the "Lyuli" before.

[okroshka79]

Returning to the topic, Oleg Kaptsov, specializing in such a specific topic as the fleet, very often admits mistakes in marine terminology and definitions, which, of course, personally disturbs me. A kind of snobbish-sloppy attitude to the naval language. Even in this article, under the photo, where the "Admiral Panteleev" submarine is staging a combined (i.e. radar and thermal in the same cloud) passive interference from the PK-10 launcher of the "Smely" PP complex, the author claims that this is the shooting of dipole reflectors. Then why do they glow, question? And in general, why shoot them ?. I will ask you or me. Or, in other articles by Oleg Kaptsov, like "... after the roll, the ship returned to an even keel." Although the term "even keel" refers exclusively to the concept when it comes to the differentiation of the ship. "Front", "back" elements of the ship ... Yes, you say on the ship "Front superstructure" or "rear household equipment". Here people grin! Do not speak on the ship and "radar", but say the radar or the radar station. Introduce the team of the officer of the watch "BIP! Turn on the Vaygach radar. It will be the same as in the first example, and the commander from the bridge will simply expel for such a command. Such is the specifics of the fleet. So, if you called yourself a cargo man, climb into the back and express yourself with navy terms and apply them correctly. In my comments, I drew Oleg Kaptsov's attention to negligence in terminology, but he obviously does not attach any significance to this. Now about the term "Open fire!" Here it is necessary to distinguish with what type of weapon for what purpose the shooting is carried out and with what forces and in what way of controlling the fire assets of a ship or formation. Obviously, the author relates this order according to forces to the opening of artillery fire. But the Combat Evolutionary Code of the Navy determined the signal by force precisely "Our to execute!", Which is executed by the flag semaphore and is duplicated in the commander's network and in the weapons control network. And nothing else. What you write "Purpose to destroy" takes place in the presence of a centralized distribution of targets in the weapons control network when conducting an anti-aircraft battle by a tactical unit. Inside the ship, when firing at the VTS, too, with a centralized CR, there will already be "Accept target designation!" With automated target allocation, if there is such a thing on the ship, no additional commands may follow, depending on the intensity of the VTsVTs raid, while with autonomous control there will be other commands. On a sea or coastal target when firing artillery - there are already different teams, and when firing cruise missiles there will be different teams, ballistic missiles at the BC - also different. But you will not hear the order to "open fire" in our fleet. Although the term "The ship (s) opened (and) fire on the target ...." during a report to a senior chief or during a shooting analysis - you cannot say otherwise. About your request for an article about our Navy with non-trivial comments, so I'll start with them. IMHO, if you write as it is, more precisely, as I see it, you will become so angry and zaminusuete. And if you write as it should, so for my colleagues I will become a non-handshake. I don’t need it. Shortly about myself. Thirty-nine calendar years (in preferential terms) of service in the Navy in various positions, but invariably, either in warhead-2, or associated in warhead-2.

[Serg65]

Hello Sergey! Yes, I agree with you, many "naval commanders" fall into a hole precisely because of ignorance of naval life ... But Oleg is forgiven, well, the guy loves imported irons, "as if invisible," well, he advocates super-armor and modern super-battleships, well, he likes a superweapon in the form of an impossible dream of a sea laser. Well, naval terminology is the tenth thing , how many people know that you can’t sit on the boatswain’s head? And that for some reason there is no tap with hot water on the klotik . Well, about the article ... to me, yes, I think, and many would like to see our fleet from the inside with the eyes of an acting officer. respectfully

[Serg65]

okroshka79 Yes, I almost forgot the namesake ... with the upcoming !!!!

[ICT]

Quote: okroshka79

"Purpose to destroy" takes place in the presence of a centralized distribution of targets in the weapons control network when conducting anti-aircraft combat by a tactical unit

it was somewhere there that I heard. yes and then on land.

Quote: okroshka79

And with autonomous control there will already be other teams.

at least some

I do not like such statements on the technical branch of the site

Quote: okroshka79

It's time for the author to move to the "Censor", IMHO.

You see, my comment has benefited, I heard two literate and quite full-fledged
comments from a specialist.
,

briefly about myself: in the army (air force BTA) 9let, the rest 17 purely in civilian life.
if only he had served the navy, he would have spun somewhere near her
rebus