Military Review

Battleship battles

262
Battleship battles


They say to newcomers - luck!
Only god thought otherwise
And he said to the battleship dryly:
“I don’t see good luck in battles!”

Those who hostile sweeps hordes ?!
And for what this opal you ?!
But with each other indeed, lords,
In that war you fought a little.


Purely offhand, from memory, in European waters during the war years, there were nine major fights, in which the “ocean lords became” managed to shoot at each other.

Fight in the Danish Strait. The result is the “Hood” sunk.

“The Hunt for Bismarck”. The result - drowned "Bismarck".

The shootout of “Rinaun” with “Scharnhorst” and “Gneisenau”. All participants got off with moderate damage, without loss of combat capability and the threat of sinking ships. The battle had serious strategic consequences: the British battle cruiser was able to ward off German heavy ships covering the landing area in Norway. Having lost the battleship of the cover, the Germans lost 10 newest destroyers from the landing force.

Meeting the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" with the aircraft carrier "Glories" (sank the aircraft carrier "Glories" and his escort).

Mayhem in Mars al-Kebir. British attack to prevent the transition of French fleet to the side of the Third Reich. Result: one old battleship is sunk, two are damaged, the feed of the destroyer leader is torn off.

Shootout in Casablanca of the American LK “Massachusetts” with the French battleship “Jean Bar”. The result - five hits 1225-kg "suitcases", the goal is disabled. And for nothing that “Jean Bar” was not completed. If the project were completed and armed - the kaput would come: the American projectile flew into the cellar of the SC, fortunately empty.

“Shot at Calabria”. Accidental hit in the Italian LC "Giulio Cesare" from the 24 distance of a kilometer. In battle, the British distinguished “Worspite”. The impact of the 871-kg blanks caused extensive destruction, injury and death of the crew members of the Cesare 115.

Fight at Cape Matapan. The fire of the British battleships sank three Italian heavy cruisers (“Pola”, “Fiume” and “Zara”).

New Year's battle at North Cape.

The British before the battle ohochi,
Pipes breathe ominously hot.
In the dark blue of the polar night
Duke of York is catching up with the Scharnhorst!

Caught up and drowned.

Nine major battles, some of which had the most serious strategic consequences.


Linear cruiser "Rinaun"


“They stood the whole war in the bases”, “outdated”, “turned out to be useless”. It’s not even a matter of the notorious confrontation “battleships vs aviation”, How many inability (or unwillingness) of most military lovers stories open the book and write on the sheet all the events. Instead, like parrots, repeat the phrase about the uselessness of this type weapons.

“There are three useless things in the world: the wall of China, the pyramid of Cheops and the battleship Yamato.


Than at the pier to rust in the obscurity,
One to the squadron proudly
It is better to go - in that more honor!
And in my dreams I, steel lords,

With a boldly raised head,
Gritting his teeth, straightening his shoulders,
I always prepare you for battle,
Though I know that the battle is not eternal.

Is the “Yamato” problem a mismatch between the costs of its construction and the result achieved? The battleship was built, fought and accepted a heroic death. The enemy had to use the whole air army, pulling aircraft carriers into the 8 area. So what more?

In the desperate situation in which Japan was located, no other options gave the Imperial fleet a chance to win. Construction instead of the “Yamato” and “Musashi” four aircraft carriers? Proponents of this theory somehow do not think about where the Japanese would take another five hundred trained pilots and additional fuel. Under the conditions of the absolute superiority of the enemy at sea and in the air, the battleship at least possessed the necessary combat stability, unlike “Taiho”, which was unstuck from the first torpedo.

The only miscalculation of the Japanese - in strict secrecy around the “Yamato”. Such a ship should have been proud and terrified by the enemy. Hearing about the 410-mm belt and 460-mm guns, the Yankees would rush to build their superlinkors with the main caliber in 500 mm, over-exerting their industry and taking funds from other important areas (destroyers, submarines).

And, probably, it should be more active to use “Yamato” at Midway. Be close to aircraft carriers such a powerful air defense platform, things could have happened differently.

So leave “Yamato” alone. It was a great ship, if used more properly, it would not have been priced at all.

Since we started talking about the Pacific theater, three violent battles happened in which the battleships fired.

On the night of November 14, 1942, the American LC “Washington” and “South Dakota” mutated the Japanese “Kirishima”. The Japanese soon utopian, and “South Dakota” was out of action for 14 months.

The sinking of the battleship “Yamashiro” in a brutal artillery battle - seven for one. (Philippines, October 1944)

And a unique battle near the island of Samar 25 in October 1944. A large Japanese compound that broke into the landing zone in the Philippines and went for several hours under endless attacks over 500 aircraft from all the surrounding airfields.

The Japanese failed the task, but the Americans did not achieve success that day. Despite the air strikes and the suicidal counterattack of the destroyers, all Japanese cruisers and battleships left the database zone and safely reached Japan (with the exception of three TKRs). The battle is notable for the fact that the Japanese managed to sink an escort aircraft carrier (“Gambier Bay”) out of guns and riddle the rest of the jeep boxes. Fortunately, for an armor-piercing projectile aircraft carrier was not any significant barrier.

“Yamato” also participated in the execution of jeeps. Whether he got at least once is unknown, but the essence of the battle was different. The Japanese had a chance to kill the entire American landing force, and the Yamato guns would have been covered in blood by the most breech. Objectively, the Americans did not have the means to stop the battleships. Takeo Kurita himself ordered the retreat. As he later admitted, he made a mistake. They say that the Japanese admiral was not in the best shape: he was still under the stress of the night shipwreck, which he had participated in just a day before the events described above (the death of the Atago TKR).

Once again, the Japanese superlinker was in the balance of triumph. He was in the thick of things. Not only did it go unnoticed through all the cordons and deceived the air force from 1200 airplanes, penetrating the restricted area, just a dozen miles ahead - and Yamato became the main cause of the failure of the American landing in the Philippines.

And then in the books they will write: “useless”, “not needed”.

Someone will smile skeptically - just three battles with battleships. Well, how many such ships? Japanese - you can count on the fingers of one hand. The Americans built 10 high-speed battleships, not counting the outdated LC of the time of the PRC. Moreover, some were damaged in Pearl Harbor and stood at the docks until 1944.

Only five to ten ships on both sides in the vast ocean! By the way, the great aircraft carriers met each other no more often, despite the fact that their number was twice as large as the number of LC.

Strictly speaking, of all the participants in the Second World War, only six of the most developed maritime powers had real battleships. Fast, powerful and extremely protected late period battleships designed for action in the open ocean.

And these three dozen ships - 12 serious battles.

Excluding small, daily “fights” and participation in large-scale operations, involving diverse aviation and navy forces.

These are endless (but not very successful) attempts to intercept British convoys by the forces of the Italian fleet. The most famous - the battle at Cape Spartivento or the battle in the Sirte Bay, when the “Littorio” hit an 381-mm projectile in the enemy destroyer. The reasons for the low performance of the Italian fleet were not so much the flotation abilities of the “macaroni”, but the lack of radar. Have they radar and modern MSAs, as on the ships of the allies - the outcome of the confrontation could be different.



These are the “Scharnhorst” and “Gneisenau” raids into the Atlantic (22 drowned and captured by transport with a total displacement of 115 thousand tons).

These are hikes of the American LC as part of high-speed aircraft carrier compounds, where the battleships were used as powerful anti-aircraft platforms. The most famous fight “South Dakota”. Covering his compound in a battle at Santa Cruz, the battleship shot down 26 Japanese aircraft. Even if you divide the stated figure by two - the achievement of “South Dakota” was a real military-technical record. But the most important thing: having such a powerful air defense “umbrella”, not one of the ships of the compound suffered serious damage.

The anti-aircraft fire from the battleship was so intense that from the side it seemed as if fires were blazing on it. In 8 minutes, the ship repulsed at least 18 attacks, in which he shot down from 7 to 14 aircraft.

"WITH. Carolina "covers AB" Enterprise "in the battle of the Eastern Solomon Islands.

This is the “red zone” in Normandy. The German command banned armored vehicles to approach the coast for a couple of dozen kilometers, where there was a great risk of being hit by ship artillery.

These are 77 amphibious assault forces on the Pacific Ocean, each of which was supported by mighty guns of battleships. Apart from the raid operations - strikes along the coast of Formosa, China and the Japanese islands, in which capital ships also took part.

The first attacks on Kwajalein Atoll began on January 29, North Caroline began the bombing of the islands that entered the atoll of Roy and Namur. On the approach to Roy from the battleship, the transport standing in the lagoon was noticed, along which several volleys were fired immediately, causing fires from bow to stern. After the disruption of the runways of the Japanese, the battleship at night and the whole next day fired at the designated targets, at the same time covering the aircraft carriers that supported the landing of troops on the neighboring islets

Battle Chronicle “North Carolina”.


“Tennessee” supports the landing on Okinawa. During the operation, the battleship fired 1490 shells of the main caliber (356 mm) and made 12 thousand shots universal artillery (127 mm).

The only battleship that stood in the bases throughout the war was the German “Tirpitz”. He did not need to go anywhere. Without a single shot, he broke up the PQ-17 convoy. 700 endured allied aviation sorties, British squadron raids and well-planned attacks using underwater special equipment.

"Tirpitz" creates universal fear and threat in all points at once. "

W. Churchill.

Fears were not in vain. While at sea, the Tirpitz was invulnerable to ordinary ships. There is little hope for aviation. In the polar haze, in a blizzard aircraft will not be able to detect and successfully attack the battleship. Submariners had no more chances: low-speed submarines of WWII could not attack such a fast maneuverable target. So the British had to constantly keep three battleships in case the Tirpitz sailed into the sea. Otherwise, the wiring of the Arctic convoys would be impossible.

Contrary to the myth of “cumbersome, useless battleships,” capital ships were the most combat-ready and active participants in the naval battles of World War II. A huge number of ships died at the first meeting with the enemy. But not the battleships! Highly protected battleships continuously participated in combat operations, were damaged and returned to service!

This is the standard. This should be the modern surface ships. Hurricane power and excellent combat stability!

To get is not to punch. And to pierce does not mean to disable.

Let someone laugh at the death of “Bismarck”, comparing it with Commissioner Cattani. 2600 shots main and medium caliber! The British plowed the doomed ship from all the trunks until they dared to come closer and sink the burning ruin with torpedo fire.

The difference between Bismarck and Commissioner Cattani is that until the last moment, before the battleship disappeared under water, most of its crew remained unharmed. And the ship itself kept the course, some systems were functioning on board. In other conditions (suppose the battle took place off the coast of Germany, the German squadron and the Luftwaffe planes came to the rescue) Bismarck had a chance to get to the base and return to service after an annual repair. After dozens (and maybe hundreds) of projectile hits from enemy ships!

Why did they stop building such magnificent battleships after the war?

After the war, they stopped building any surface ships with a displacement of more than 10 thousand tons. Savings due to the appearance of a compact rocket weapon and the removal of body armor under the pretext of lack of need. In the age of jet aircraft, any “Phantom” could lift a couple of dozen bombs and fill them with battleship from bow to stern. At the same time, the air defense weapons of those years turned out to be completely useless in repelling such attacks.

Modern air defense will prevent any attempts mast bombing. While the guns with adjustable projectiles organically complement the missile when striking the shore.

Everything gradually returns to normal. Destroyers with a displacement of 15 thousand tons are already being built in America. Russian shipbuilders without any modesty cite data on the destroyer “Leader” in 15-20 thousand tons. Any classification is conditional. Call them what you want - cruisers, destroyers, battleships, sea rocket platforms ...

20 thousand tons - the possibility of creating warships, whose security would not be inferior to the battleships of previous years, with a twice smaller displacement (with the availability of modern technologies and optimization of protection for new types of threats).


The battleship "North Carolina", our time
Author:
262 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. insafufa
    insafufa 31 July 2015 06: 15
    +1
    Bored of battleships
    1. Shick
      Shick 31 July 2015 06: 38
      +8
      the appearance of the railgun can give them a second life
      1. Russian Uzbek
        Russian Uzbek 31 July 2015 06: 56
        +1
        the advent of RCC makes these huge floating targets pointless ...
        1. mgfly
          mgfly 31 July 2015 08: 21
          +7
          I do not agree - I doubt that PCRs are capable of breaking through 30 cm of armor. even though the armor of superstructures is weaker than the hull and deck, it still significantly exceeds the "armor" of modern ships -> therefore, the anti-ship missiles on a battleship will not cause such global destruction. there was also an article on VO - what if the battleships returned? there they noticed that the decks would not be able to rise with bombs capable of breaking through the deck of a battleship; but from the shore they may simply not reach it ...
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 31 July 2015 09: 36
            +1
            Quote: mgfly
            I don’t agree - I doubt that PCRs are capable of breaking through 30 cm armored steel.

            You forgot about tactical nuclear weapons. It turns any ship into an easy target.
            1. RPG_
              RPG_ 31 July 2015 09: 40
              +13
              Here, somewhere, the article was, with an analysis of the shelling of battleships with nuclear weapons in the Bikini Atoll. I recommend to get acquainted. This should greatly surprise you.
              1. Assistant
                Assistant 31 July 2015 12: 08
                +14
                Here, somewhere, the article was, with an analysis of the shelling of battleships with nuclear weapons in the Bikini Atoll. I recommend to get acquainted. This should greatly surprise you.


                The problem is that in the course of the exercises the technologies of the 50s were worked out - nuclear warheads dropped on a warrant of ships and exploding above them in the air, or a mine with nuclear warheads exploding above water. Naturally, ships were struck as close as possible to the epicenter, the rest simply became radioactive.
                But the technology of the 70s - 80s is a completely different matter. They implied individual guidance of missiles with nuclear warheads for their own purposes. The heavy anti-ship missile with nuclear warhead was intended to crash into its target, and even if it exploded a few tens of meters - anyway, part of the ship’s hull would fall into the epicenter. And there, at a temperature of several thousand Kelvin, no protection systems would have helped. And the missiles with nuclear warheads were supposed to go last in a salvo, on the one hand - to the already empty cells of anti-aircraft missiles, on the other - without interfering with the EMP from its explosion to other missiles. So everything is not so clear here.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 31 July 2015 19: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: Assistant
                  And the missiles with nuclear warheads were supposed to go last in a salvo, on the one hand - to the already empty cells of anti-aircraft missiles, on the other - without interfering with the EMP from its explosion to other missiles. So everything is not so clear here.

                  Hmm ... in the monographs on Tu-16 and Tu-22 in "AiV" it was written that the CD with the SBCH was just supposed to go in the first and second waves - to disable the AUG air defense system. Their targets were to be the escort tins and their electronics. The first wave was launched "in the approximate area of ​​the AUG" and was supposed to break the air defense system into separate elements (the main thing was to kill the radar, communications and all sorts of datalinks). And the second was already working pointwise on the escort ships.
                  At the same time, even a miss was "to the cashier" - for EMP.
                  1. Assistant
                    Assistant 31 July 2015 20: 05
                    +1
                    Hmm ... in the monographs on Tu-16 and Tu-22 in "AiV" it was written that the CD with the SBCH was just supposed to go in the first and second waves - to disable the AUG air defense system.


                    It was understood that if the missiles were already fired and are swarming, then the KR with the SBN should line up behind the rest of the missiles. If it is possible to make several volleys, then what you pointed out is logical: the first volley breaks down the air defense system, the ships sink next.
              2. Malkor
                Malkor 31 July 2015 17: 01
                +5
                Ha ha shelling battleships on a bikini atoll. Read the results. The goat died even while in the trunk. The entire crew would die even without the sinking of the battleship. The battleships by the way had to be flooded - they did not succumb to decontamination. Monipulation of the results and silence of the facts is yours to become about the result of nuclear tests on a bikini atoll.
            2. oldkap22
              oldkap22 31 July 2015 17: 01
              +1
              not a fact ... Were tested both by us and by the Americans ... If the tank has a "attenuation coefficient" of -10, then how much does a battleship have?
              1. Malkor
                Malkor 1 August 2015 20: 12
                +1
                Penetrating radiation - if the radiation is 10000 times more deadly, then attenuation of 10 times will not help. Attenuation of 10 times will greatly help then from nuclear fallout. AND THIS IS THE FACT OF TESTING ON LINCORS HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND PROVEN THAT THE CREW WILL KILL WITHOUT WATERING THE LINCOR AFTER A NUCLEAR BATTLE.
          2. shans2
            shans2 31 July 2015 10: 18
            0
            ridiculous), missile warheads are very different, previously cumulatively high-explosive ones were popular, they are still in service now, you know Karl! Cumulatively high-explosive, they can easily break through half a meter of armor and explode inside.
            1. Old_kapitan
              Old_kapitan 31 July 2015 14: 05
              +4
              You are repeating the nonsense about the cumulative torpedo that sank the Kursk. I saw holes in the tank armor from PG-7V rounds. So, the diameter of the shot is 105 mm, and the hole from it is 30-40 mm. You see, Karl! The hole diameter is several times smaller than the warhead diameter. I wonder how it gets inside and explodes there?
              1. K-50
                K-50 31 July 2015 22: 04
                +2
                Quote: Old_Kapitan
                I wonder how it will get inside and explode there?

                And how does the RShG work with a tandem warhead? Similar.
                1. Old_kapitan
                  Old_kapitan 1 August 2015 11: 44
                  +2
                  Do you know that RSHGs are designed to combat light-armored vehicles?
          3. Russian Uzbek
            Russian Uzbek 31 July 2015 10: 40
            +4
            "" "there was also an article on the VO" ""
            there are a lot of freaks here with crazy ideas;) my personal opinion is that there is a big rocket for every big ship! and not one ...
            But it will withstand or not withstand armor protection the penetration of anti-ship missiles (whichever is the same) can be checked only during a real war
            my opinion: the time of the armored, artillery giants has passed ...
          4. opus
            opus 31 July 2015 15: 17
            +8
            Quote: mgfly
            I doubt that PCRs are able to break through 30 cm of armored steel.


            P-1000 Volcano - SS-N-12 mod.2 SANDBOX

            Types of warheads:
            - high explosive cumulative; tests of the armor penetration of the warhead were carried out by launches on the ground stand ("reactive track"). According to calculations, the destruction of an aircraft carrier requires hitting 3 missiles.
            Weight BB - 500 kg
            Penetration - up to 400 mm

            - nuclear power 350 ct, nothing to talk about

            Quote: mgfly
            there was also an article on VO - what if the battleships returned?

            on in there are many articles "differing in intelligence and ingenuity, intelligence and ingenuity ...


            the impact of modern OF warheads on electronic tripe, which hung modern ships are generally difficult to overestimate.
            the ability of the PHAR (AFAR) to work with the embossed PPM and the distorted PARL cloth will not save.
            It will take everything and the miracle of the 21 century turns out to be blind, deaf .. Is it someone who knows how to use a sextant or does Igida decide everything?
            Quote: mgfly
            ? they noticed that the decks could not get up with bombs,

            ?
            Ritz (Michael E. Rietz) said at the US Navy’s aircraft station in Lemore that “the simulation showed that the Super Hornet not only can take off from a springboard, but can also fly into the air with a significant combat load” (during a detailed simulation conducted at Boeing's test centers as part of an Indian tender, the aircraft can be used from the Gorshkov deck.)

            2.3.1. The tactics of using carrier-based aviation against
            surface ships.

            According to the tactical standards of the US Navy, the range of the oncoming engagement of aircraft carriers is 700 - 1100 km, although in the conducted exercises, the destruction of the alleged enemy - the Russian heavy aircraft carrier "Admiral of the Soviet Union N.G. Kuznetsov",
            The ability to strike carrier-based aircraft at a Russian ship from a range of 1600-1700 km was successfully demonstrated.


            F / A-18 -Maximum load: end wing pendants - according to 136 kg, external and internal underwing - according to 1100 kg, dorsal fenders - according to 1090 kg and on the air intake - according to 230 kg. And with this it takes off.
            and not even one ... and even with PTB (according to 700 liters it seems?)
          5. Malkor
            Malkor 31 July 2015 17: 05
            -1
            30cm ???, a projectile from a tank pierces 100cm of homogeneous armor with a caliber of 125mm, pkr with hypersound and a mass of 700kg will pierce much more. And if the charge is commutative or shock core ???
          6. Lenivets
            Lenivets 31 July 2015 21: 08
            +1
            "I do not agree - I doubt that the PKR are capable of breaking through 30 cm of armor."

            Here in "Caliber-NK" about half a ton of warhead and it will not be able to break through pathetic 30 cm of armor? what
            1. K-50
              K-50 31 July 2015 22: 11
              +4
              Quote: Lenivets
              Is there about half a ton of warhead in "Caliber-NK" and it won't be able to break through a pitiful 30 cm of armor?

              Even if it doesn’t break through, then an explosion of a warhead weighing half a ton will blow everything around, and radars and air defense systems, and in general, can only hit the airborne missiles with missiles, but then again, where they’ll fall if they’re in the area of ​​their location Did not happen.
              There was much less explosive in the shells of the last World War.
          7. K-50
            K-50 31 July 2015 21: 57
            +5
            Quote: mgfly
            decks cannot climb with bombs capable of breaking through the deck of a battleship

            Why did it happen? belay
            To break through the deck of a battleship, there will be enough air bombs weighing from 1 t.
            Look at the bomb load of modern aviation and do not write this. hi
            1. alex86
              alex86 1 August 2015 20: 56
              +1
              Quote: K-50
              To break through the deck of a battleship, enough air bombs weighing from 1 t

              Armor "Tirpitz" was able to penetrate only "Tollboy" weighing 5,4 tons with a mass of explosives of 2,3 tons. In general, for piercing armor in the days of large-caliber artillery (there were no sub-caliber or cumulative ammunition, which, by the way, do not pose a great danger for battleships due to the insignificant armor effect for such large objects) there was a simple rule: armor is pierced by a caliber larger than armor - i.e., for 300 mm armor, the caliber should be 320-350 mm. At the same time, the projectile is practically a blank, but with a certain amount of explosives (filling factor 2-5%), which explodes after overcoming the armor - and the warheads of modern anti-ship missiles are exactly the opposite - the mass of metal is about half, the armor penetration is significantly lower - only for modern "cardboard" hulls ( and the defeat of everything that is open). Therefore, thick armor has large calibers.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 1 August 2015 22: 17
                +1
                but who told you such stupidity ... Tollboys on Tirpitz gouged in the expectation of defeat by a close gap ... and to break through the armored decks, ordinary BRABs were enough ... Roma received a breakthrough "right through" through all decks with just one "Fritz" which caliber was about a ton ...
                1. alex86
                  alex86 4 August 2015 21: 02
                  0
                  But a close explosion did not hit him completely (the shaft bent), but was struck by a direct hit - a breakdown of the deck with internal damage and an explosion on the armor of the tower with the defeat of superstructures. (About stupidity - I will attribute it to bad manners - this is on the one hand, and the fact is "Tirpitz "was amazed by the Tallboys - on the other). I agree about BRAB, but for such a large object, the small mass of explosives does not inflict a decisive defeat - it will not sink.
                  In general, we were talking about 300 mm of armor and whether an anti-ship missile warhead could penetrate it - and I said that to penetrate such armor, an armor-piercing projectile of a larger (caliber greater than thickness) caliber is needed at a projectile speed significantly higher than the sonic one, and not subsonic, as with air bombs (especially since today no one will allow air bombs to be dropped, even planning ones). Fritz was more in line with this, as the fill rate was around 16%.
                  1. Vlad.by
                    Vlad.by 28 November 2017 10: 01
                    +1
                    There is no need to sink modern ships. After the failure of antenna canvases and attachments, these pieces of iron cease to be a warship. And the question of drowning them if necessary is just a matter of time. You need to drown the carrier ships of the first strike missiles, and then, only before the launch of these missiles. After starting it is enough to stick 2-3 plumes on the decks and that’s all, it will run for repair. If he runs.
        2. Midshipman
          Midshipman 31 July 2015 09: 34
          +6
          Rather, the appearance of nuclear weapons made them meaningless. A pair of 152mm shells with special warheads are guaranteed to destroy any battleship. But you understand that if modern battleships have to shoot at each other, then they will not do without nuclear weapons.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 11
            +1
            In addition, an underwater explosion of the usual large warhead under the keel, due to which the boat breaks in half, made them meaningless, if earlier it could only be a healthy torpedo, or mini-submarines with sabotage at the bases, then missile torpedoes and diving warheads of anti-ship missiles appeared

            Even without this "Bismarck" is characterized by a flood ...
          2. Normal ok
            Normal ok 1 August 2015 15: 57
            0
            To deliver an 152mm shell to a battleship, you need to approach it at a distance incompatible with life laughing suitable
          3. Normal ok
            Normal ok 1 August 2015 15: 57
            0
            To deliver an 152mm shell to a battleship, you need to approach it at a distance incompatible with life laughing suitable
        3. RPG_
          RPG_ 31 July 2015 09: 39
          +1
          Discussed already. And the copies are broken a lot about it. But no one could refute the invulnerability of Linkor for RCC. It's like throwing sacks of rotten potatoes at the speed of sound through tanks.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 15
            +3
            Have you heard something like concrete bombs against airfield strips, and how do they work? laughing
        4. opus
          opus 31 July 2015 14: 48
          +1
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          the appearance of RCC

          let's say the appearance of guided weapons (both KABs and UAS) makes armor pointless.
          But penetration by modern means of destruction all the more so, there is no need to talk about atomic weapons
        5. Shadowcat
          Shadowcat 31 July 2015 16: 07
          +4
          A lot of things are meaningless in the world: submarines are fraternal underwater graves, ships of a grave surface-flooded, planes are coffins flying, and soldiers in general are suicide bombers running to bullets.

          The question is how to use. Will there be a chance. etc.
        6. Knight
          Knight 1 August 2015 05: 44
          +2
          The armor will not be superfluous.
        7. Orlenok ILLI4A
          Orlenok ILLI4A 2 August 2015 08: 44
          0
          Describe the PCR capable of breaking through 450mm of armor?
      2. EGOrkka
        EGOrkka 31 July 2015 08: 38
        0
        Shick
        the appearance of the railgun can give them a second life


        ...... and the development of new ekranoplanes will give a second death.
      3. Engineer
        Engineer 31 July 2015 10: 41
        -1
        the appearance of railguns generally level armor
      4. opus
        opus 31 July 2015 14: 47
        +1
        Quote: Shick
        the appearance of the railgun can give them a second life

        How will the railgun help (de facto he has not yet been born)?
        1. Values ​​of critical velocities (at which penetration will inevitably occur, even if a stop is realized) penetration for various types of armored materials by cylindrical tungsten strikers with a length of 50 mm and a diameter of 7 mm:

        speeds are quite achievable by cheap mv standard barrel artillery
        (combined armor on battleships is unlikely to be used due to the high cost (volumes are large))

        2. Punch will be guaranteed (speed from 2500m / s), but here the hole will be "miro".
        What will this give for a battleship (and even for a cardboard destroyer)?

        2-3 kilogram shell with a diameter of 30 mm, will sew a cardboard destroyer for departure, and an armored battleship.
        What's next?
        fatal "hole" in 3 cm?

        There will be no armor impact ... ce is not a tank


        Well, put the railgun on the ship, for what purposes will it work at sea? You can, of course, shoot at flying objects. They are often at a sick height and are not hidden beyond the horizon. The truth is the question arises, how to induce this electromagnetic colossus that we saw in the video? Probably, but obviously, it’s not easy at all.
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 36
          0
          The calculation for the railgun is more than strange. Where is the kinetic energy released when a projectile hits? There will be some other pre-exposure effects as well. A modern ship is tightly packed enough to let electronics and l / s cut through a cloud of fragments.
          1. opus
            opus 31 July 2015 19: 43
            0
            Quote: Iraclius
            The calculation for the railgun is more than strange.

            This is not a calculation of RT!
            These are experimental data on critical velocity values(at which a break will inevitably occur, even if a stop is realized)
            Quote: Iraclius
            Where is the kinetic energy released when a projectile hits?

            And what do you think is breaking through (disc, not COP)? Due to what? Due to Ek, it happens.
            If you are interested in the heat generated at the same time (Ek-in heat), then this is another song and does not have a relation to breaking through (metal will not flow)
            Quote: Iraclius
            There will be some other pre-exposure effects as well.

            which one? from an 2-3 kg generator with a weight and diameter of 3 cm?
            The ship, even 1000 tons displacement of this will not notice

            Anti-aircraft artillery complex Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS
            Caliber - 20 × 102 mm x 6 trunks Rate of fire, rounds / min - 3000 (technical limit on the rate of fire of the 2 w / min, in theory)

            so or

            or

            Is the armor pool great?
            And who will hit that?
            What are the pieces of 30 mm bun?

            They themselves consider WGs for a completely different
    2. mark1
      mark1 31 July 2015 07: 30
      +5
      The absence of serious structural protection on modern NKs makes them disposable, and missile weapons, in most cases, are excessively expensive, so the idea of ​​reviving battleships to a new qualitative level with guns, laser masers and Gaussian has a right to exist.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 July 2015 08: 03
        +7
        Quote: Shick
        the appearance of the railgun

        Quote: mark1
        on a new level with guns, laser masers and gauss

        Yes forget about guns
        They are secondary

        Battleship is first and foremost security. That is precisely their value from the perspective of our days.


        the model shown in the picture can be optimized taking into account new threats (as an option - more shatterproof bulkheads, more attention to horizontal protection, rational angles of inclination of the sides - aka free-wheeling, etc.). all this will more than fit 20-25 thousand tons

        Tired of punching, and breaking through - there will be nothing left to inflict serious damage (coefficient of filling of any penetrator - many times less than that of a conventional boom / warhead of RCC)

        as for the guns - a pair of 203 ... 280 mm for artillery support and strikes along the shore, main armament - UVP with missiles, 21 century in the yard
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 31 July 2015 08: 34
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Battleship is first and foremost security. That is precisely their value from the perspective of our days.
          Dear Oleg, I personally am grateful to you precisely for raising the topic security... In this, even the battleship itself is not an end in itself, it is important to talk about the protection of modern warships using the example of a battleship. Although, the battleship itself, as a strike ship with powerful missile and cannon armament and good protection, can obviously still return to sea. Missile weapons and electronics have become significantly more compact, new materials have appeared for protection, all this can revive a battleship (or heavy cruiser) in modern fleets. To deny the relevance of protection, increasing survivability is stupidity, shortsightedness. In this I do not understand the logic of those who believe that the lack of protection is better than the search for strengthening the protection of modern surface ships. What will be the new "bulletproof vest" for a battleship is another question, but the lives of the sailors are worth thinking about.
          1. Santa Fe
            31 July 2015 08: 49
            +3
            Quote: Per se.
            In this, even the battleship itself is not an end in itself, it is important to speak about the protection of modern warships as an example of a battleship

            Exactly!
            1. family tree
              family tree 1 August 2015 00: 23
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Exactly!

              Provided that from the shock wave of the warhead supported by water resistance, the seams of the internal bulkheads will not separate, and the bulkheads themselves will not be deformed. The foil is, in comparison with the case, and even if the case itself bends, there, inside, of deformations and tears, oh, at least for rivets, even for welding, cracks and sadness what
          2. Roman 11
            Roman 11 31 July 2015 22: 53
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            What will be the new "bulletproof vest"

            Then there will be a new power plant, the gas turbine giant will not pull.
          3. Taoist
            Taoist 1 August 2015 12: 05
            +2
            No one denies protection, including constructive. The main problem is that today a much more effective method of enhancing the security and combat stability of warships is the development of active defense systems. Unfortunately, the armor has long and hopelessly lost the competition to the projectile, and until protection based on new physical principles (for example, a field) appears, then dissipating the energy of penetrators with the help of "thick iron plates" is just throwing money down the drain. the energy of the means of destruction is far superior to anything we can put into passive defense. If you pay attention, now the armor remains solely for protection from the "secondary field of destruction" (fragments, debris, etc.) and the main protection is an extremely active counteraction calculated to prevent the "shock core" ...
            1. Santa Fe
              2 August 2015 05: 38
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              Today, the development of active defense systems is a much more effective method of enhancing the security and combat stability of warships.

              Not obvious
              All cases prove the opposite - Stark, Sheffield, Hanit, Cole, the recent case with the cruiser Chancellorville - air defense could not cope with a simulator of low-flying anti-ship missiles


              Quote: Taoist
              now the armor remains solely to protect against the "secondary field of destruction" (fragments, debris, etc.)

              Tell it to the designers Ahzarit, Namer and Puma
              Quote: Taoist
              dissipating the energy of penetrators using "thick iron plates" is just a waste of money

              The increase in the combat weight of armored vehicles is Kurganets (25 tons - twice as heavy as Soviet-era armored vehicles!), Bulldog, Israeli Namer (60 tons), American GTV (80-ton BMP project).

              Why hung with plates - use BTR-80 with anti-splinter protection!


              Armored personnel carrier Namer based on Merkava-4, at a training ground in the usa

              Tell their designers about money and wind!
              about how the armor lost lost the contest to the projectile
              Quote: Taoist
              to prevent the "shock core"

              You will live to see the "shock core"
              and then stick together at the first meeting with an RPG or a roadside mine buried on the sidelines
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 2 August 2015 11: 02
                0
                Those. You don't see the difference between booking a ship and a tank either ... I'm sorry ... By the way, you don't know that most of that "heavy armor" is also "active protection" - which is just intended to "not stick together from an RPG on the sidelines "? - The truth is how you scale the tank version to the ship, I personally do not understand ... it will be cheaper to cast it from gold then.

                And all your examples ... well, let's just say I'm an "old warrior" (including by age) and I can quite imagine such a controversial technique as sophistry ... The ocean is great and pulling examples confirming or refuting anything is wrong too difficult ...
                So ... practice is the crown of everything - and it quite objectively shows us the tendency of development of "active means of defense" and their prevalence over "passive" ones.

                Therefore, to your regret, we are unlikely to see new "battleships" ...
        2. kashtak
          kashtak 31 July 2015 09: 10
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Yes forget about guns
          They are secondary

          Battleship is first and foremost security. It is in this that their value from the perspective of our days

          thick spaced armor will easily protect against anti-ship missiles. here you are right. the trouble is that building multipurpose submarines minimizes the value of armor. undermining under the bottom of 200-500kg warhead torpedoes will bypass any armored belt. to close the ship with thick armor from all sides will not give the weight of such protection. Do you know why dinosaurs became extinct? sad but the giants (any) are out of date. and armor won't help. several medium-sized ships will be more efficient, and possible losses are lower. and IMHO guns are wiser to limit 152mm to a maximum of 203mm. the MLRS will cope above. I read as an article about the possibility of reducing vulnerability to RCC not due to armor, but due to immersion in water on the deck. argued for the presence of universal weapons and a decrease in the area of ​​the side. what do you say about this? I’m being taken away by doubts because such a semi-submarine ship will need voluminous ballast tanks, but the advantages are also attractive.
          1. Santa Fe
            31 July 2015 09: 38
            +1
            Quote: kashtak
            multipurpose submarines

            what is the number of multipurpose submarines, their prevalence in the world

            for reference:
            F-16 fighter-bombers - 4,5 thou.
            F-35 fighter-bombers - now their number exceeds the number of nuclear boats existing in the world and modern nuclear submarines
            Harpoon anti-ship missiles - 10 thousand units, 30 countries of the world
            Exoset anti-ship missiles - 10 thousand units, 30 countries of the world
            Yinji-82 anti-ship missiles - the Chinese are working day and night
            Quote: kashtak
            what do you say about this?

            the chance of meeting a torpedo is two orders of magnitude lower than with a bomb or RCC
            1. kashtak
              kashtak 31 July 2015 10: 04
              +2
              the number of multipurpose submarines will be more than the number of battleships. so that about two orders, you are sorry to get excited. the probability of encountering a torpedo will be high enough to be taken into account. and if it was only about the anti-ship missile system, I would have written myself that the armor is what you need. but that's not what I was asking. with your permission, I repeat. "I read something like an article about the possibility of reducing vulnerability to anti-ship missiles not due to armor, but due to immersion in water along the deck. It was argued by the presence of universal weapons and a decrease in the side area. What can you say about this?" about semi-submarine ships with a small target surface. What do you think is the probability of an anti-ship missile hitting such a ship? bombs are a question of air defense.
              1. Santa Fe
                31 July 2015 10: 21
                +2
                Quote: kashtak
                the number of multi-purpose submarines will always be more than the number of battleships

                We do not compare with battleships
                with aviation and carriers of small-sized anti-ship missiles (exoset / harpoon / NSM / Inji / Type90)

                and there will be two more orders of magnitude than highly protected battleship cruisers and submarines combined
                Quote: kashtak
                the probability of meeting a torpedo will be high enough to take it into account

                have means PLO
                there is anti-torpedo RBU-6000

                - torpedoes and their carriers negligible compared to air attack (confirmed by all wars of the last 50 years)
                - a torpedo is easier to intercept than a flock of low-flying anti-ship missiles
                (RBU-6000, drop wake network, Nixie)
                Quote: kashtak
                I read as an article about the possibility of reducing vulnerability to RCC not due to armor, but due to immersion in water on the deck

                this will be hindered by:
                1. the height of the antenna posts - it should be as large as possible
                2. seaworthiness and restrictions on the use of weapons in the storm
                3. increased resistance to water friction and deterioration of propulsive qualities (do not compare with submarines - they have a ratio of the length and width of the hull 1: 10)
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 31 July 2015 11: 12
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  this will be hindered by:
                  1. the height of the antenna posts - it should be as large as possible
                  2. seaworthiness and restrictions on the use of weapons in the storm
                  3. increased resistance to water friction and deterioration of propulsive qualities (do not compare with submarines - they have a ratio of the length and width of the hull 1: 10)

                  But for this Oleg, BRAVO !!!! Fantasies, fantasies and sober thoughts God did not deprive you ++++ good
                  1. kashtak
                    kashtak 31 July 2015 11: 51
                    0
                    1) fantasy 2) sober calculation 3) execution and only in this sequence. this is where the brainstorming is 1) seaworthiness and the use of weapons in a storm are facilitated by better stability and the ability to let waves pass over you 2) what does the extension have to do with it? what is needed and what will be 3) I do not insist but asked your opinion, I do not like it (I also don’t really) suggest something else we will discuss.
                2. kashtak
                  kashtak 31 July 2015 11: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  We do not compare with battleships
                  with aviation and carriers of small-sized anti-ship missiles (exoset / harpoon / NSM / Inji / Type90)

                  why not with battleships. I was just comparing large armored battleships and small unarmored ships. and one should not overestimate the anti-ship missiles "a torpedo is easier to intercept than a flock of low-flying anti-ship missiles" is debatable, however. a salvo by a "flock" of torpedoes is no easier to intercept than a flock of missiles, and a torpedo hit is more effective. if of course we talk about a heavily armored target. but this is a dispute about the superiority of the left and right Twix sticks. and anti-ship missiles and torpedoes have their own strengths and weaknesses. As I understand it, you are not offering submarines, but aviation and ground-based launchers? Well, one thing complements the other. but you went away big and armored or small. and how to protect them, including from RCC? you yourself write that air defense may not be enough?
                3. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. family tree
              family tree 1 August 2015 19: 37
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              the chance of meeting a torpedo is two orders of magnitude lower than with a bomb or RCC

              There, the probabilities must be considered differently, based on the expression "a large ship, a large torpedo fellow "
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 31 July 2015 11: 17
            0
            Quote: kashtak
            I read as an article about the possibility of reducing vulnerability to RCC not due to armor, but due to immersion in water on the deck. argued for the presence of universal weapons and a decrease in the area of ​​the side. what do you say about this? I’m being taken away by doubts because such a semi-submarine ship will need voluminous ballast tanks, but the advantages are also tempting.
            Let me interfere here. What you are talking about is not new for a long time, there was such an inventor S.K. Dzhavetsky with the idea of ​​a "water-armored destroyer". Submarines did not work out very well for him, but with this topic he managed to interest and receive a lot of money from the tsarist government. As a result, we got an under-submarine, devoid of stealth, and a non-dominant, devoid of speed and maneuverability, and even with the "armor" when firing 120-152 mm shells, not everything worked out as we wanted. The project was closed.
            1. kashtak
              kashtak 31 July 2015 11: 31
              +1
              I'm not saying that this is news. judging by the drawing of the ship of the 60-70s of the 19th century? so then battleships with submarines were no better. remember "Monitor" now a lot has changed. and the new is often the old made anew. that's why he asked. as an option.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 31 July 2015 11: 59
                +1
                Quote: kashtak
                Now a lot has changed. and the new often old made in a new way
                Perhaps, if this turns out to be a full-fledged ship, otherwise we will again get a bad "submarine" or a clumsy "non-armored carrier" flooded with waves. From the British, the Nelson-class battleships could receive ballast of the seawater before the battle, which served as additional protection for the sides. This is not quite a "water-armored" ship, which is actually under water, but it is also an option. Finally, Dzhavetsky's idea can be refined when immersion (sinking) occurs for stealth mode from radars.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Scraptor
              Scraptor 31 July 2015 12: 09
              0
              Then, with the drawings of this boat, quite normal for those times, one French apprentice fled to France, and she thundered with her fame all over the world, passing her off as her own.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 31 July 2015 11: 21
            +1
            The case of titanium armor VT35TVH can be made, it will be twice as light as steel and surpass it in strength.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 31 July 2015 13: 09
              +3
              Case made of titanium armor VT35TVH
              titanium is expensive, but we do not have the Soviet Union to spend that kind of money on one ship, here a dozen tanks are with great help (fashionable word out) the country produces, and you're about 20 thousand. ton ships with 500mm titanium armored belts say, we’ll be completely without a coward with such a ship in a single copy.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 31 July 2015 18: 09
                0
                I buy 20 tons of titanium per year for production.
            2. opus
              opus 31 July 2015 16: 51
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              VT35TVH Titanium Armor Case m

              Cost from 2000p / kg (2014)
              On battleship of "Pennsylvania" and "Arizona" class

              The design displacement of each of the battleships was 31400 tons. The total displacement of the project was 32440 tons.

              The total weight of the hull of each ship was 14778 t, including the weight of the kit, which was 1295 t.

              A COUNTRY BURNS, even if only the armored belt from the vehicle:


              So you can still

              (albeit expensive)
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 31 July 2015 18: 15
                0
                This is not a problem, such ships, if any, will appear in 2080, and there they can master the extraction of titanium on the Moon, they say that there are 400 times more than on earth.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 31 July 2015 18: 22
                0
                The current cost of titanium is 2300 rubles per kilogram, multiplied by 14000 tons, we get a little more than thirty-two billion rubles - the whole ship will cost 100 billion rubles - the price is not that big, considering that we have one Su 30 fighter costs 2 billion rubles.
        3. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. gjv
      gjv 31 July 2015 09: 25
      +3
      Quote: insafufa
      Bored of battleships

      Quote: avt
      legacy old

      The deal with the first atomic submarine of the Soviet Union "Leninsky Komsomol" got under way. For about ten years "Leninsky Komsomol" stood on the plant's slipway. The decision to convert it into a museum was, but with finances ... alas. But now the money has appeared thanks to a letter on behalf of the Governor of the Murmansk Region Marina Kovtun to Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. It contained a request for financing the first stage of work on the formation of the K-3 "Lenin Komsomol" museum.


      At the moment, the submarine is divided into two parts, and its "atomic heart" is at the long-term storage site in Sayda-Guba. To return the submarine to its original appearance, the plant recreates a model of the energy compartment, which will be connected to the bow and stern parts. At the moment, the company is forming a solid case for this compartment.
    5. fyvaprold
      fyvaprold 31 July 2015 15: 50
      +1
      Quote: insafufa
      Bored of battleships

      So write an article, say, about aircraft carriers, or of your choice, read with interest. good With respect.
  2. alex-cn
    alex-cn 31 July 2015 07: 36
    +3
    If our experts in electronic warfare and air defense declare that they can overwhelm almost any modern anti-ship missile system, then the issue of a floating target is very controversial. But how to overwhelm a projectile flying almost 80 km, and as one specialist wrote "weighing a ton and standing like a Mercedes" is also a question. By the way, even 10 years ago, the battleships of the WWII were not written off from the Ams, but were in long-term storage. I can’t say that I’m a big supporter of battleships and I don’t really understand that in naval affairs - the infantry itself. But I would not neglect such powerful artillery support completely - after all, as I understand it, the battleship can be equipped with missiles too.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 31 July 2015 09: 04
      +3
      Quote: alex-cn
      If our specialists in electronic warfare and air defense say that they can overwhelm almost any modern anti-ship missile system, then the issue of a floating target is highly controversial.

      feel I'm sorry, but our specialists somewhere stated that they can neutralize the torpedo T 65-76 ??? No, just wondering? Does the fleet consist of battleships, aircraft carriers and destroyers only?
    2. Iraclius
      Iraclius 31 July 2015 16: 55
      0
      RCC in its current form is obsolete. Hypersonic missiles with a speed above 10M what will you bring down?
      1. opus
        opus 31 July 2015 18: 06
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        Hypersonic missiles with a speed above 10M what will you bring down?

        cannot "travel" in the atmosphere of the earth below the ceiling 10-15 km (theoretically), but in reality all 25 km.

        At the end will be more than 5000K.

        10 is not available on the buns even in tests (I do not mean disposable 5 minute BBs)
        Quote: Iraclius
        RCC in its current form is obsolete

        vice versa:
        - further, easier, less
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 16
          0
          I'm talking about speed. The technical task for the Igloo provided for speeds of the order of 6-14M. Heights - I agree. But what have the heights to do with it? The approach speed of such a missile at an altitude of 50 km makes it invulnerable to ship's air defense systems. Whatever armor the ship possesses, it is doomed.
  3. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 31 July 2015 07: 39
    +3
    Uv.Oleg, the modernization of the eagles quite fits into what you are painting about.
  4. Wedmak
    Wedmak 31 July 2015 07: 48
    +1
    Why did they stop building such magnificent battleships after the war?

    They themselves answered their own question. The advent of rocket weapons nullifies the entire armor of the battleship. And the power of his guns is useless at a distance of 100 km - for a modern rocket a couple of minutes of flight. Gouging a superstructure with missiles, and then scattering guided bombs from an altitude of 10 km, not a single battleship can resist.
    However, there is another side. And Oleg noticed this. 1164 project cruisers - why not a modern battleship? At least in terms of armament? Project 1144 "Orlan" - alone is capable of gouging a squadron of ships, and its air defense can cover any landing.
    Let's see what the Leader will be like. Let's see what the Americans will build.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 31 July 2015 08: 16
      +1
      Why is this? It's easier, cheaper and wiser to just shove all this weapons into a squadron of smaller arsenals. "Bismarck" taught nothing? Well, yes, of course he is big and handsome and does not like Angle ... but he got the best from a paper biplane.
    2. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 08: 24
      +3
      Quote: Wedmak
      The advent of rocket weapons nullifies all the battleship’s armor

      How
      Quote: Wedmak
      the power of his guns is useless at a distance of 100 km

      correct b / n?
      with bottom gas generator?

      100 km is generally elementary, for calibers 200-300 mm
      remember the stalingrad - their cannon guns were fired at xnumx km. There was no GPS at that time, so there were problems with accuracy. But now - there are Krasnopoli and LRP for Zamvolta, a lot of ideas and technologies
      Quote: Wedmak
      for a modern rocket a couple of minutes of flight

      projectile (even high-tech, adjustable):
      - always cheaper
      - low vulnerability to air defense
      - less approach time
      - conventional discs - at short range. those do not care about air defense, electronic warfare, etc.
      - unlike aviation - guns fire in any weather and under any conditions
      - ten times more ammunition compared to missile weapons

      As already mentioned above - guns are secondary. The main quality of the LC with t.z. of our days is armor protection and combat stability
      Quote: Wedmak
      1164 project cruisers - why not a modern battleship?

      You probably wanted to say - what is not a highly protected warship
      The answer is no. This is a disposable tin without any structural protection. Moreover, it’s very expensive, it will be a pity if it burns from the first hit of a bomb or RCC
      Quote: Wedmak
      Gouging rocket add-on

      Fuck
      bring 200 planes - and fuck. By then, he will spread all the infrastructure on the enemy coast, and most likely will leave the database zone
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 31 July 2015 10: 21
        +2
        correct b / n?
        with bottom gas generator?

        Although generated, the accuracy of the hit from this will not increase.
        But now - there are Krasnopoli and LRP for Zamvolta, a lot of ideas and technologies

        Yeah. And who, let me ask, will highlight the goals for these Krasnopoli and LRP? Diver send? Do not offer an airplane, as This will be a very convenient target for air defense. In addition, the correction of the projectile is quite limited both in time and in maneuverability.
        projectile (even high-tech, adjustable):

        The use of him, if he is not homing, is still not enough. Let there be more ammunition, but hitting one small SAM in the bridge will be more effective than hitting a dozen 300 mm shells in the hull. Something takes me very much doubt about the exact hit of the projectile for 50 km, in the superstructure. You can’t do without homing, and these are already technologies close to missiles.
        This is a disposable tin without any structural protection. Moreover, it’s very expensive, it will be a pity if it burns from the first hit of a bomb or RCC

        You’re straight so easy to deal with a ship with a powerful multi-level air defense, which already envy takes.
        bring 200 planes - and fuck.

        Here's another. It is much easier to launch a swarm of small missiles with fragmentation-cumulative warheads. Remote control is available, you can really get the sunroof, illuminator, wheelhouse, in open control rooms.
        he will carry all the infrastructure on the enemy coast, and most likely will leave the database zone

        Well, well ... Have you forgotten about coastal anti-ship missiles? Their range is much greater than the range of the guns. One RCC - one GK tower, a very reasonable exchange.

        Basically, I am not an opponent of battleships, but they must correspond to modern realities. Powerful armor in the absence of air defense systems will not save. A large-caliber guns instead of a couple of dozen SDs is the last century.
        1. Santa Fe
          31 July 2015 11: 04
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          who, let me ask, will highlight the goals for these Krasnopoli and LRP?

          those who caused fire support
          marines, army

          option No. 2 - according to GPS data, as with a lock
          Quote: Wedmak
          about getting one small SAM in the bridge will be more effective than hitting a dozen 300 mm shells in the hull

          shells - for purposes ashore
          for sea and air purposes there is 200 UVP with missiles
          Quote: Wedmak
          You’re straight so easy to deal with a ship with a powerful multi-level air defense, which already envy takes.

          Stark and Sheffield
          Quote: Wedmak
          easier to launch a swarm of small missiles with fragmentation-cumulative warheads

          let anything.
          drones, rockets, kamikaze

          while he will shoot your cities and naval bases
          Quote: Wedmak
          Their range is much greater than the range of guns

          their range is to the radio horizon

          And the guns hit targets with pre-determined coordinates, the range can reach 100 + km
          Quote: Wedmak
          large-caliber guns instead of a couple of dozen SDs this is the last century.

          The creators of Zamvolt disagree with you

          the ammunition of 900 rounds - 10 times more than the Tomahawks on the destroyer
          Quote: Wedmak
          Basically, I am not an opponent of battleships, but they must correspond to modern realities. Powerful armor in the absence of air defense systems will not save.

          http://topwar.ru/46844-raketno-artilleriyskiy-linkor-xxi-veka.html
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 31 July 2015 11: 45
            0
            those who caused fire support
            marines, army

            Are we talking about naval battles or supporting landing from the sea?
            option No. 2 - according to GPS data, as with a lock

            Nude, nude, on a moving target then ...

            shells - for purposes ashore
            for sea and air purposes there is 200 UVP with missiles

            So for what purposes on shore do you now need 200-300-400 mm guns?
            200 UVP with missiles, for sea or air? The kit can vary from tomahawks to missiles in different combinations. So instead of a pair of 300 mm guns with ammunition, is it more appropriate to insert another three dozen UVP?
            Stark and Sheffield

            It’s their own fault, nefig was waving ears.
            while he will shoot your cities and naval bases

            That is, if one manages to come close to the distance of the shot.
            their range is to the radio horizon

            Are you seriously?
            And the guns hit targets with pre-determined coordinates, the range can reach 100 + km

            Can’t rockets hit at pre-determined coordinates? And what will be the accuracy of hitting an unguided projectile beyond 100 + km? And if it is controlled, will its value surpass the same rocket?
            The creators of Zamvolt disagree with you

            155 mm on the ship, this is just a laugh to the creators of the battleships. I actually talked about caliber 200 and higher.
            the ammunition of 900 rounds - 10 times more than the Tomahawks on the destroyer

            The declared 160 km still need to be approached. From the same distance you still have to get. Yes, xnumx shots is a lot. Only now, the BAL complex fires an X-900U rocket at 35 km.

            I have already expressed my opinion. You keep arguing about nothing. One 155 gun, even with 900 shots, when landing, this is nothing at all. Everything that is ashore will hit the landing, and heavier weapons can be brought up on the ground than on any ship.
            The experience of NATO operations in recent wars generally shows that preference is given to remote weapons like the Tomahawk. No guns were discussed at all.
            Again, if we are to build a modern battleship, then it should be a ship with the most powerful missile weapons, both offensive and defensive types. If there is artillery, then only with a caliber of about 150 mm, there is no more sense, such a projectile will replace a rocket. Relatively cheap MLRS on amphibious assault ships can clean the coast just as well. And I can't imagine the goals for a "suitcase" of half a ton.
      2. K-50
        K-50 31 July 2015 22: 37
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Fuck
        bring 200 planes - and fuck. By then, he will spread all the infrastructure on the enemy coast, and most likely will leave the database zone

        With a launch range of RCC at 300 km or more, he will have to run away for a long time. Moreover, aviation will not calmly stand at the airport, waiting for the shelling of the coast to end.
  5. candidate
    candidate 31 July 2015 08: 16
    0
    ... Technology - Progress
    Move ElM - process
    Railguns are now in fashion
    So to be battleships in fashion ...
  6. Pal2004
    Pal2004 31 July 2015 08: 24
    +2
    Battleships are marine titans, but alas, of the past tense .... The article is interesting. I liked the poems.
  7. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 08: 30
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Wedmak
    The advent of rocket weapons nullifies all the battleship’s armor

    How
    Through the laws of physics, the study of which the author skipped school apparently. smile
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 08: 42
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      By the laws of physics

      so shine with knowledge of physics

      how a missile is dangerous for constructive defense, similar to the armored defense of WWII-era LC - that was designed to withstand steel blanks weighing a ton and Mach 2 speed at runaway
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 31 July 2015 09: 27
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        so shine with knowledge of physics

        how a missile is dangerous for constructive defense, similar to the armored defense of WWII-era LC - that was designed to withstand steel blanks weighing a ton and Mach 2 speed at runaway

        Shumarahnu cumulatively and all sailed battleship.
      2. Assistant
        Assistant 31 July 2015 12: 36
        +1
        how a missile is dangerous for constructive defense, similar to the armored defense of WWII-era LC - that was designed to withstand steel blanks weighing a ton and Mach 2 speed at runaway


        I will try exclusively in the order of throwing options.
        Supersonic rocket individual guidance with SBN crashes into the side of the LC during WWII, well, or explodes a dozen meters from it - does not change the essence.
        Part of the LC of WWII times evaporates, the rest is melted and sent to the bottom.
      3. K-50
        K-50 31 July 2015 23: 00
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2 Mach at the end

        Most likely, not at the end, but about the second third of the distance, because muzzle velocity up to 800 m / s
  8. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 31 July 2015 08: 41
    +1
    RCC "Granite" in my opinion hits a little further than 100-150 km and I almost forgot 7 tons at a speed of 3500 wink km / h what do you say the thickness of the armor of the battleship
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 08: 47
      +1
      Quote: kapitan281271
      what do you say the thickness of the armor of the battleship

      Who is armed with granite?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 July 2015 11: 33
        0
        About RCC Granite, you can already forget its speed will be removed from service. Modern air defense systems can cope with any missile or aircraft.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 31 July 2015 12: 21
          0
          Doesn’t she even fly over land? lol
    2. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 31 July 2015 09: 01
      0
      Quote: kapitan281271
      ASM "Granit" in my opinion hits a little further than 100-150 km and I almost forgot 7 tons

      Well, this is the starting weight, and it has a warhead "... The missile is equipped with warheads of various types [2]. It can be either a semi-armor-piercing (high-explosive-penetrating) warhead weighing 584-750 kg", besides this one. ..When firing at a long range (more than 100-120 km), missiles rise to an altitude of about 14000-17000 meters and perform most of the flight on it in order to reduce air resistance "make it an excellent target
      "... Since the flight time of the rocket over a long range is significant, and the target can go beyond the detection radius of the missile's seeker, the complex needs precise target designation carried out by the Uspekh aviation complex from Tu-95RTs aircraft or Ka-25Ts helicopters, or from complex of reconnaissance and target designation MKRTs "Legend" [note 4] "
      How are things going with guidance now?
    3. Assistant
      Assistant 31 July 2015 12: 39
      0
      ASM "Granit" in my opinion hits a little further than 100-150 km


      Unfortunately, only when flying on a high-low profile. In the early 80s, one could still hope for sufficient invisibility of a volley flying along such a profile, now - no.
  9. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 08: 53
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Alex_59
    By the laws of physics

    so shine with knowledge of physics

    how a missile is dangerous for constructive defense, similar to the armored defense of WWII-era LC - that was designed to withstand steel blanks weighing a ton and Mach 2 speed at runaway

    And how does an ATGM make a tank? Here you built, built your five-year battleship in which the armored belt 305 millimeters. Built. Cool. How many billions of dollars have been spent? In order to nullify all these efforts, it is enough for any anti-ship missile to replace a monoblock warhead with a tandem warhead, where the main charge is a cumulative charge, or just a dozen micro-charges along the diameter of the rocket body. And you can make such charges tandem or even triple, so that not only a hole under the warhead in the armor is cut out, but also in bulkheads. Such a solution is worth a penny. The armor sheet is cut by cumulative charges along the diameter of a high explosive warhead, which then simply flies into the hull through a weakened section of the side. Modern cumulative charges easily cut through more than a meter of armored steel. And their cost is slightly higher than the cost of garbage - nigers in Africa sell and buy thousands of RPG-7 charges. You say there are no such warheads on RCC? Well, yes, no, for there are no idiots to build battleships. And as soon as the battleships begin to build, in a month such warheads will appear a little less than in all naval countries.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 31 July 2015 09: 07
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      Modern cumulative charges easily cut through more than a meter of armored steel.

      Homogeneous as a rule, and if there is a composite between the armored plates and some hafnium carbide and tantalum, to which the cumulative jet will not cause particular harm
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 31 July 2015 10: 53
        0
        There, these inertial forces are a million times more elastic (hardness) and heat resistance does not matter at all ... it's easier to pour balls into the sand and you get "Dorchester" feel well, or breathing your own uranium - like in the American way (by the way, this crap that you haven’t mentioned by night is also toxic).
      2. K-50
        K-50 31 July 2015 23: 05
        +1
        Quote: rosarioagro
        Homogeneous as a rule, and if there is a composite between the armored plates and some hafnium carbide and tantalum, to which the cumulative jet will not cause particular harm

        And how much will it cost in the size of a battleship ?, cheaper to cast from gold and put on a monument.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 31 July 2015 09: 07
      0
      I absolutely agree with you !!! good
    3. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 09: 09
      +3
      What a long comment, you, Alexei, put together all the myths and misconceptions
      Quote: Alex_59
      And how does an ATGM make a tank?

      The tank has a reserved volume of several kuyu. meters
      if you burn the armor with a thin jet of cum. charge - with 100% probability you will fall into fuel, ammunition or crew

      a ship is not a tank. in the first compartment from the side do not store ammunition. everything important is hidden deep in the body, dispersed and duplicated

      you can drill a battleship from an RPG until the end of time, in the hope that it will rain, water will flow into the holes and the ship will sink
      Quote: Alex_59
      Here you built, built your five-year battleship in which the armored belt 305 millimeters. Built. Cool. How many billions of dollars have been spent? In order to nullify all these efforts, it is enough for any RCC

      So you built the destroyer Burke (Leader), spent 2,5 billion. Any random PKR is enough for all this to burn out and go to the bottom, along with the crew. Whose relatives will have to pay another billion compensation
      Quote: Alex_59
      it’s enough for any RCC to replace the monoblock warhead with a tandem warhead, where the cumulative charge is in front of the main charge

      the main charge (penetrator) will contain only a couple dozen kilos of explosives. 20 thousand ton ship like an elephant

      with warhead weight in 450 kg, which is 2 times more than any NATO anti-ship missile
      Quote: Alex_59
      And can such charges be made tandem or even triple

      Then the mass of explosives in the pentator will be 3 kilos. Kuram laughing
      Quote: Alex_59
      Such a solution is worth a penny. The armor sheet is cut by cumulative charges along the diameter of a high explosive warhead

      A penny?
      such a solution with the current level of technology is impossible to implement outside the walls of laboratories
      Quote: Alex_59
      in a month such warheads will appear a little less than in all naval countries.

      Reread my comment again
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 July 2015 20: 51
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        you can drill a battleship from an RPG until the end of time, in the hope that it will rain, water will flow into the holes and the ship will sink

        He proposes to arrange cumulative charges on the missile’s warhead around the circumference and burn out the circle when approaching so that the warhead goes inside and works there, theoretically it can work, even 200 kg in a confined space will do a lot of trouble.
        1. Santa Fe
          31 July 2015 21: 01
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          He proposes to arrange cumulative charges on the missile’s warhead around the circumference and burn out the circle when approaching so that the warhead goes inside and works there, theoretically it can work, even 200 kg in a confined space will do a lot of trouble.

          We talked about it below.

          in rests against the mass and dimensions of such a b / p. diameter of a couple of meters
          and what will be the circle at an angle of meeting 45 degrees from the normal))
    4. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 09: 12
      0
      What a long comment, you, Alexei, put together all the myths and misconceptions
      Quote: Alex_59
      And how does an ATGM make a tank?

      The tank has a reserved volume of several cubic meters
      if you burn the armor with a thin jet of cum. charge - with 100% probability you will fall into fuel, ammunition or crew

      a ship is not a tank. in the first compartment from the side do not store ammunition. everything important is hidden deep in the body, dispersed and duplicated

      you can drill a battleship from an RPG until the end of time, in the hope that it will rain, water will flow into the holes and the ship will sink
      Quote: Alex_59
      Here you built, built your five-year battleship in which the armored belt 305 millimeters. Built. Cool. How many billions of dollars have been spent? In order to nullify all these efforts, it is enough for any RCC

      So you built the destroyer Burke (Leader), spent 2,5 billion. Any random PKR is enough for all this to burn out and go to the bottom, along with the crew. Whose relatives will have to pay another billion compensation
      Quote: Alex_59
      it’s enough for any RCC to replace the monoblock warhead with a tandem warhead, where the cumulative charge is in front of the main charge

      the main charge (penetrator) will contain only a couple dozen kilos of explosives. 20 thousand ton ship like an elephant

      with warhead weight in 450 kg, which is 2 times greater than any of the existing NATO anti-ship missiles
      Quote: Alex_59
      And can such charges be made tandem or even triple

      Then the mass of explosives in the pentator will be 3 kilos. Kuram laughing
      Quote: Alex_59
      Such a solution is worth a penny. The armor sheet is cut by cumulative charges along the diameter of a high explosive warhead

      A penny?
      such a solution with the current level of technology cannot be implemented outside the walls of laboratories
      Quote: Alex_59
      in a month such warheads will appear a little less than in all naval countries.

      Reread my comment again
    5. common man
      common man 31 July 2015 09: 38
      0
      Quote: Alex_59

      And how does an ATGM make a tank?

      The volume of the fighting compartment of the tank 7 cu. m. The volume of the ship with a displacement of 20 thousand tons. Approximately 60-80 thousand cubic meters. m. Do you feel the difference? Well, burn through the armor in the Kubrick area? Rockets are on the drum. The effect will be if only your cumulative stream will cause detonation of ammunition, and then in doubt.
    6. RPG_
      RPG_ 31 July 2015 09: 50
      0
      The tank is compact and cumulative against them are effective, but there will already be problems with the remote booking of LCs.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 25
        0
        the bunkers are somehow amazing ...
  10. common man
    common man 31 July 2015 09: 12
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    The advent of rocket weapons nullifies the entire armor of the battleship.

    Not every missile will pierce an armor belt. Harpoon - hardly. Basalt - possibly due to mass and speed. But by definition there are few of them on the ship. large displacement allows battleship-class ships to accommodate more short-range air defense systems. And indeed, to organize a "system" of missile defense-air defense from long-range to near. And here a general question arises. Where more weapons can fit, on one ship with a displacement of 20 thousand tons, or on 4 ships of 5 thousand tons each. And what will be their comparative cost. Who is in the subject, tell us. Although, in principle, it is clear that 5-thousanders, although there are 10 of them, long-range air defense systems (such as S-400) will not be able to carry.
    I understood Oleg’s main message in the article as follows. In conditions of miniaturization of electronics and missile weapons, ships with a displacement of more than 10-15 thousand tons must be reserved. And the second, that large missile cannon ships possess sufficient combat stability and have the right to exist. A word for specialists?
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 09: 25
      +2
      Quote: man in the street
      . Where more weapons will fit, on one ship with a displacement of 20 thousand tons, or on 4's ships of 5 thousand

      On a ship with / and 20 thousand tons will fit more

      Reason - load articles are connected nonlinearly
      The larger the ship - the more reserves for the payload, the proportion of hull structures and power plants decreases
      large missile cannon ships have sufficient combat stability

      ships with structural protection

      missiles / rockets - this is the third thing
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 July 2015 18: 31
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      Not every rocket will pierce the armor belt. Harpoon is unlikely. Basalt is possible due to mass and speed. But they are, by definition, few on the ship.

      And why pierce the armored belt? Why not try breaking through the deck?

      Actually, what makes guided weapons with LK well shown by "Roma" and "Worspite".
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 39
        +1
        Of course, many have not heard about the fact that many modern missiles make a "slide" before hitting a target, and are also capable of maneuvering along the entire flight path. laughing

        What kind of armored belt guys? 21 century in the yard.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 1 August 2015 04: 47
          0
          Ptur tanks hit from above even without a hill and anti-airdrome bombs also from a shaver (or gentle cabrio).
  11. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 09: 23
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    a ship is not a tank. in the first compartment from the side do not store ammunition. everything important is hidden deep in the body, dispersed and duplicated
    You didn’t get it. Cumulative charges are not designed to set fire to or explode something in your battleship. They just cut holes in the armor of the battleship, weakening it so much that the impact of the main warhead breaks through the weakened area. Sopromat, however!

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Then the mass of explosives in the pentator will be 3 kilos. Kuram laughing
    Where does the number in 3 kilo come from? Why do you think so? The charge of an ancient, like guano mammoth shot, RPG-7 weighs 6,3 kg and pierces 750 mm of armor. Instead of warheads in 450 kg, we put a package of 10 RPG-7 shots, which gives the weight of 63 kg. And we facilitate the main warhead for these very 63 kg. And in addition, the main charge will be 450-63 = 387 kg. Not that much, but the guts of the battleship will be warm and light.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    A penny?
    such a solution with the current level of technology is impossible to implement outside the walls of laboratories
    You are not right. Smoke rocket and space technology. Since the 60's, elongated directional cumulative charges of any shape and mass have been used to cut the thrust on rockets since the XNUMX's, chopping any structures. And not only.
    Homogeneous as a rule, and if there is a composite between the armored plates and some hafnium carbide and tantalum, to which the cumulative jet will not cause particular harm
    Yeah, and how much will a battleship with hafnium and tantalum armor cost? Yes, that's not the point. Combined armor has been striking for a long time, this is a matter of the design of the cumulative charge.
    1. RPG_
      RPG_ 31 July 2015 09: 55
      +1
      10 shots from RPG7? Ahaha, you imagine the dimensions of such a tandem and who will be its carrier. So in the end, God forbid, you get into the cabin of the sailors and burn them a stash there, so they will find you later and it will be difficult to leave alive. laughing
    2. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 09: 56
      +4
      Quote: Alex_59
      They just cut holes in the armor of the battleship, weakening it so much that the impact of the main warhead breaks through the weakened area.

      easier laser
      Quote: Alex_59
      RPG-7 weighs 6,3 kg and pierces 750 mm

      More interesting what is the diameter of the through hole
      five millimeters?
      Quote: Alex_59
      Instead of warheads in 450 kg, we put a package of 10 RPG-7 shots, which gives the weight of 63 kg.

      and into the formed hole with a diameter of 50 mm, we push (push, ram) the 387-kilogram blank. it happens at a speed of 500 m / s
      Quote: Alex_59
      And we facilitate the main warhead for these very 63 kg. And in addition, the main charge will be 450-63 = 387 kg

      Alex, do not compose
      better open the internet or book

      anti-bunker KEPD TAURUS
      tandem warhead weighing 481 kg
      penetrator mass ~ 100 kg
      explosive mass in the 56 penetrator kg (filling coefficient 0,5 - strength is too low, there is a good chance that the penetrator needle will simply break when passing through the hole in the armor)

      What is 56 kg for a ship with / and 20 thousand tons?

      while an ordinary anti-ship missile with 450 kg high-explosive warhead from the first hit will blow the unarmored destroyer to shreds, ditching the entire crew
      Quote: Alex_59
      Since the 60's, elongated directional cumulative charges of any shape and mass have been used to cut the thrust on rockets since the XNUMX's, chopping any structures

      At a speed of 500 m / s? (regarding chopped structures)

      how was he going to chop armor - up or down, into cubes?
      Quote: Alex_59
      Yeah, and how much will a battleship with hafnium and tantalum armor cost?

      materials:
      - Krupp armored steel with a cemented outer layer
      internal shatterproof bulkheads:
      - puff (metal / ceramic), Kevlar
  12. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 31 July 2015 09: 33
    +3
    How many copies are already broken about the confrontation between the armor and the shell! Battleships - this is the brainchild of this confrontation, the pinnacle of development. But the shell is an uncontrollable thing. and booking involves protecting vital parts of the ship from ACCIDENTAL hit. And a general (and not a general, but just a battle, even one on one) battle meant bombarding each other with shells until a series of SUCCESSFUL hits did not level the thickness of the enemy’s armor and send it to the forefathers! This is so, a description at the children's level for the concept of fact by those who, with foam at the mouth, calls for the revival of battleships as a class.
    Examples of armor resilience are the Battle of Jutland. And if the British had more time, the German fleet would not exist. And so “Königs” and “Kaisers” perfectly held the blow. And they were saved by the fact that the enemy lacked determination and a number of tactical blunders in controlling the battle. And an example of dependence on chance is the sinking of the Hood ...
    But now in the courtyard of the century of controlled weapons! There is no talk of any accident. Why not break through the armor on the waterline to make the armored box useless. But you won’t reserve the ship tightly! After all, the modern occupancy of the equipment with its developed system of cables, antennas and other gadgets makes an attempt to make a good reservation pointless. I have already mentioned this more than once. Today the reality is that armor, in essence, is an air defense system designed to prevent a missile from entering a ship. For the characteristics of the missiles are such that no armor can save from the failure of the ship! THIS IS REALITY!
    And all the rest - coping and nostalgia for the good old battles! I like battleships too ... And what ?? We need to really look at things! On the real purpose of certain elements of the ship, on the cost of these elements, on the effectiveness of these elements in the current conditions and the slalancing of elements within the framework of the ALLOCATED WATER DISPENSION, COST!
    The only thing that can be revived is the arsenal ship designs! So both "Eagles" and "Zamvolty" fit it with a stretch. But this confrontation is by no means armor and a projectile, but a more intelligent weapon.
    With this I still agree what
    And the rest is so alternative. Against the coast, you can still use museum pieces from America. But only against the Papuans. And a normal country will always find the answer how to deal with them. Only this is no longer "Lords of the Seas", but ordinary barges with big cannons. After all, for every cunning member there is a priest with nooks and crannies wink
    This is just my opinion. hi
    PS There is a model of "Sevastopol" on the shelf itself good
    1. RPG_
      RPG_ 31 July 2015 09: 59
      0
      Speech generally is not a lot about that. No one is going to revive the LC in the form in which they were. You just see a wonderful prospect of moderate booking of warships so that they would not die from one anti-ship missile. They can’t sink even the antediluvian Missouri existing missiles, but they can do it completely incapable. But 2000 people from the crew can survive in this situation. Unless of course they will finish off as Bismarck from anger.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 31 July 2015 14: 27
        +1
        Even a moderate reservation will lead either to an increase in displacement, and therefore cost. Naturally, with a dubious prospect of staying afloat in a hypothetical meeting with RCC. Or to the deterioration of other characteristics without increasing displacement. With the same prospect. The only thing that justifies the emergence of local reservations is that when dividing into a large number of isolated compartments for unsinkability, make sure that ONE rocket doesn’t damage when hit ship completely. Those. ballistic reservations of the main battle stations and vital communication and control cables can still provide such an opportunity hiDividing into multiple compartments will provide buoyancy, and local protection will provide relative protection against the effects of a rocket explosion, because the weight of a partial reservation can still be found without increasing the cost
  13. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 09: 57
    0
    Quote: Alex_59


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Then the mass of explosives in the pentator will be 3 kilos. Kuram laughing
    Where does the number in 3 kilo come from? Why do you think so? The charge of an ancient, like guano mammoth shot, RPG-7 weighs 6,3 kg and pierces 750 mm of armor. Instead of warheads in 450 kg, we put a package of 10 RPG-7 shots, which gives the weight of 63 kg. And we facilitate the main warhead for these very 63 kg. And in addition, the main charge will be 450-63 = 387 kg. Not that much, but the guts of the battleship will be warm and light.
    My memory failed me - 6,3 kg, this is the device itself, and the shot is 2,6 kg! So the numbers are different 450- (2,6 x 10) = 424 kg the main charge will be.
    Quote: man in the street
    Quote: Alex_59

    And how does an ATGM make a tank?

    The volume of the fighting compartment of the tank 7 cu. m. The volume of the ship with a displacement of 20 thousand tons. Approximately 60-80 thousand cubic meters. m. Do you feel the difference? Well, burn through the armor in the Kubrick area? Rockets are on the drum. The effect will be if only your cumulative stream will cause detonation of ammunition, and then in doubt.

    Again. In ATGM, the cumulative jet is not only a means of breaking through armor, but also a means of destruction. I’m talking about the fact that on anti-ship missiles cumulative charges are only a means of breaking through the armor, ensuring the penetration of the main charge into the body. Which, in turn, is a means of destruction. Once at high speed for armor, the main charge will break through a certain number of bulkheads due to kinetic energy and explode far in the depths of the hull.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 10: 05
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      Once at high speed for armor, the main charge will break through a certain number of bulkheads due to kinetic energy and explode far in the back of the hull.

      How much explosive will this "main charge" contain?

      KEPD Taurus - 56 kg with warhead weight 481 kg (tandem, with cumulative part)
    2. Assistant
      Assistant 31 July 2015 12: 52
      0
      Again. In ATGM, the cumulative jet is not only a means of breaking through armor, but also a means of destruction.


      Here we are again approaching the most important difference between the tank and the LC. As you unsubscribed above, the tank is basically more densely arranged, and this allows the past cumulative stream to damage not only the external armor, but also some protected unit / crew member. And since the main units on the tank are present in one instance, the tank will be at least deprived of one of its functions.
  14. tomket
    tomket 31 July 2015 10: 19
    0
    Oleg, when you write from memory and to a vskidku about the brawls in which the "lords of battleships" managed to shoot each other, I would like to ask, the aircraft carrier "Glories" is also a battleship and also fired ????
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 10: 25
      +1
      Quote: tomket
      Is the aircraft carrier Glories also a battleship and also fired?

      The goal is too large, the battle with severe consequences for the British
      deservedly on the list
      1. tomket
        tomket 31 July 2015 11: 06
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The goal is too large, the battle with severe consequences for the British
        deservedly on the list

        Then it is necessary to write about cases when it was possible to shoot, and not about duels of battleships. Here you have a duel, here you are just a big goal, here for the amount of one operation we’ll do two, and then just write about going to sea. I twist and turn ..... I want.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 41
      0
      Quote: tomket
      about the brawls in which the "lords of battleships" managed to shoot at each other, I would like to ask, the aircraft carrier "Glories" is also a battleship and also fired ???

      No, he was "shock", and therefore struck with his body lol
      And the more such an aircraft carrier, the better! laughing
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 July 2015 19: 38
      0
      Quote: tomket
      I would like to ask, is the aircraft carrier Glories also a battleship and also fired?

      Well, if you remember the history of "glories", then at the beginning of his career he was still a capital ship. smile
  15. Taoist
    Taoist 31 July 2015 10: 22
    0
    "How he sings, how he sings .... A little more and I won't be able to kill him ..." "Don't be afraid, I'm with you" (c)

    ;-)
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 48
      +1
      Nobody pulled you by the strap in the subject with the "Marader" falling into the "black fluoric" in Korea, shot down over Germany! wink
      1. tomket
        tomket 31 July 2015 12: 48
        +1
        There were no colorful photos of burning b-29s to be found for Kaptsovsky fluoride
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 31 July 2015 12: 52
          +1
          swimming finely ... it’s how he compostes the cerebellum drinks
  16. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 10: 22
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: Alex_59
    RPG-7 weighs 6,3 kg and pierces 750 mm

    More interesting what is the diameter of the through hole
    five millimeters?
    50 mm order.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: Alex_59
    Instead of warheads in 450 kg, we put a package of 10 RPG-7 shots, which gives the weight of 63 kg.

    and into the formed hole with a diameter of 50 mm, we push (push, ram) the 387-kilogram blank. it happens at a speed of 500 m / s
    You really show ignorance of technology. No, nobody pushes anything into the hole from the cumulative funnel. Warhead breaks through a piece of armor on the perforation formed by holes from cumulative jets. A set of holes from the cumulative charges creates a perforation, which is a source of internal stress in the armor. Further, when the main charge is struck by it, the armor cleaves along pre-prepared perforations.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Alex_59
    And we facilitate the main warhead for these very 63 kg. And in addition, the main charge will be 450-63 = 387 kg

    Alex, do not compose
    better open the internet or book

    anti-bunker KEPD TAURUS
    tandem warhead weighing 481 kg
    penetrator mass ~ 100 kg
    explosive mass in the 56 penetrator kg (filling coefficient 0,5 - strength is too low, there is a good chance that the penetrator needle will simply break when passing through the hole in the armor)

    What is 56 kg for a ship with / and 20 thousand tons?

    while an ordinary anti-ship missile with 450 kg high-explosive warhead from the first hit will blow the unarmored destroyer to shreds, ditching the entire crew
    This is not about the weight of the explosive, but about the proportion of weight in the total weight of the RCC allocated for combat equipment. It is from it that the weight of the cumulative charges must be subtracted, and not from the weight of the warhead.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Alex_59
    Since the 60's, elongated directional cumulative charges of any shape and mass have been used to cut the thrust on rockets since the XNUMX's, chopping any structures

    At a speed of 500 m / s? (regarding chopped structures)

    how was he going to chop armor - up or down, into cubes?
    You have no fun. It's just that I held all these fantastic things for you (like thrust cutoff charges) repeatedly in my hands and worked with them. The truth is not long.

    Okay, let's go another way. Here is a link for you: http://www.promperforator.ru/kumuljativnye_zarjady
    These are quite industrial cumulative charges. The most powerful of them weighs 30 grams and breaks through 1200 mm barriers giving a funnel with a diameter of 22 mm. Let the diameter of the warhead RCC 500 mm. Then its area will be 0,2 m2. In order to turn armor in this area into a continuous sieve, you need 516 charges giving an opening of 22 mm. What is the weight in 16 kg. Thus, the weight of the warhead is reduced 450-16 = 434 kg. Thus, regardless of whether there is armor on your battleship or not, warhead weighing 434 kg is guaranteed to get inside the case. From this point, the scenario develops in much the same way as you wrote about the unarmored destroyer.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 10: 43
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      50 mm order.

      This is the diameter of the inlet funnel

      What is the diameter of the hole channel
      Quote: Alex_59
      Warhead breaks through a piece of armor on the perforation formed by holes from cumulative jets.

      what will be the dimensions of the wonderful ammunition))
      Further, when the main charge hits it, the armor cleaves by pre-prepared perforation.

      suddenly the angle of the meeting is different from the normal
      a rocket does not always hit strictly aboard

      and that's it on 500 m / s
      dice evenly))
      Quote: Alex_59
      This is not about the weight of the explosive, but about the proportion of weight in the total weight of the RCC allocated for combat equipment.

      From the point of view of global erudition, we are talking about the amount of TNT in a rocket
      how many explosives will get inside the ship

      Taurus 481 kg warhead - only 56 kg left for explosives
      Quote: Alex_59
      The most powerful of them weighs 30 grams and breaks through 1200 mm barriers giving a funnel with a diameter of 22 mm.

      I can personally drive a shovel into the ground by 300 mm
      but I’m unlikely to leave even Tsarpin on the armor of the tank

      Inlet Diameter, mm - 10-20 millimeters
      What is the diameter of the bore? 3 mm?
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 31 July 2015 11: 39
      +2
      You shouldn't argue with him ... I have already given examples of using cassette warheads in this "eternal question".

      Absolutely corny. RBC 500 (with its own weight in 520kg) carries the 352 PTAB 2,5 KOs which, having armor penetration of at least 200mm, still provide a solid field of destruction with fragments.
      if we imagine the approach of the anti-ship missile system along the center plane of our "new battleship", then such a warhead will turn the deck and superstructures into a kind of colander and guaranteed to disable all electronic equipment and weapons ... Yes, perhaps after that the ship will remain afloat and will not lose speed ... but to the point of it ... I won't even mention the possibility of destroying the VPU cells and the explosion of the BC ... Well, such an "airplane" does not "fly" with modern ASP ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 July 2015 18: 58
        0
        Quote: Taoist
        if we imagine the approach of anti-ship missiles along the diametrical plane of our "new battleship", then such a warhead will turn the deck and superstructures into a kind of colander and is guaranteed to disable all electronic equipment and weapons ...

        Giggle ... on Tsushima, that was one of the battleship's favorite arguments - "what is all your survivability worth if you have a cluster of warheads with fragmentation submunitions demolished antennas"?
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 31 July 2015 20: 40
          0
          Well, this is actually on the surface ... After all, for some reason the "battleships" always shyly keep silent about the consequences for the practically unprotected (and in principle, they cannot be protected) anti-aircraft, observation and other posts on the upper decks ... (remember how " Browning "tore all this stuff to shreds during the attack ...) and fuck the Bismarck who never got anywhere after the first gift that arrived in the superstructure ...
          By the way, I am not a "battleship phage and not a battleshipophile" - I am just a military engineer and realist. And therefore, at the modern level, the only reliable "armor" I consider is the prevention of means of destruction up to tp. "bodies" - because it is simply unprofitable energetically.
          1. Santa Fe
            31 July 2015 21: 05
            +2
            Quote: Taoist
            After all, for some reason the "battleships" always shyly keep silent about the consequences for the almost unprotected (and in principle, they cannot be protected) anti-aircraft, observation and other posts on the upper decks ...

            They talked about it and wrote a thousand times
            But you prefer bashfully skipping ears

            Protection of external antenna posts - a headache. You can look back at Zamvolt and use lifting (retractable) antennas of communication systems. Destroy them all at once will not work, they can not be used simultaneously under the terms of electromagnetic compatibility.

            Protecting a flat phased radar antenna array from a nearby explosion will allow a radio transparent cover-fairing or frequency-selective surface (as in aviation). In addition, modern AFARs retain their performance even when “knocking out” several independent modules. And microelectronics itself is extremely resistant to strong vibrations.

            Finally, even the complete loss of the radar does not affect the ability to launch cruise missiles and firing cannons at targets over the horizon.
            1. K-50
              K-50 31 July 2015 23: 20
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              To protect the flat phased antenna array of the radar from a close explosion, a radiotransparent cowl-cowling will allow

              And what will protect the plastic radiotransparent casing from a close explosion? belay
            2. Taoist
              Taoist 31 July 2015 23: 34
              +1
              OK. Theoretically, you "protected" the antennas ... Which of course is not, to put it mildly ... but what about the launchers, anti-aircraft and other posts and towers? A solid armored deck 300 millimeters thick? ;-) So even 100 tons of displacement will not be enough for you ...
              By the way, how are you going to shoot from cannons "at targets over the horizon" with knocked out central aiming posts? Hovering over the boot? I can still theoretically imagine launching an anti-ship missile system without external target designation (in active mode - although we are dramatically losing range), but how to shoot without target designation from the barrel artillery? Something new ... let's illuminate us with a technical revelation ... otherwise "the men don't know" ... Bismarck didn't get anywhere even in line of sight with the downed monitoring station ...
              1. Santa Fe
                1 August 2015 02: 46
                +1
                Quote: Taoist
                By the way, how are you from the cannons "at targets over the horizon" with knocked out central aiming posts

                wow, for this we need to break through all the constructive protection, a lot of shatterproof bulkheads and decks
                or do you think computers will be on the upper deck?
                Quote: Taoist
                OK. Theoretically, you "protected" the antennas ... Which of course is not, to put it mildly ...

                what's wrong

                one of the four headlamps of the Cole destroyer, after the explosion (300 kg bag of TNT at the very side)
                functioning restored after 15 minutes

                if protected with a Kevlar fairing + AFAR (thousands of independent modules), it will remain operational even after a hail of fragments.
                Moreover, at least 4 antennas are oriented by their sectors, they cannot be hit with a single missile

                + lifting antennas of communication systems, as in Zamvolt
                Quote: Taoist
                I can theoretically imagine launching anti-ship missiles without external target designation

                What will prevent you from getting an external data center?

                Communication is protected. Lots of lifting antennas. Satellite phone - in the pocket of every officer. All you need to know is that in such a square there is an enemy ship. The rest of the GOS missiles will do itself.

                Radar is basically not needed here, it only sees 10 miles to the WP
                Quote: Taoist
                but how to shoot without target designation from the barrel artillery?

                Data from drones, air control gears (J-STARS), ground groups of spotters

                Quote: Taoist
                Point over the boot?


                Quote: Taoist
                Bismarck didn’t get anywhere even on line of sight with a downed monitoring station ...

                He shot at a moving maneuvering target
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 1 August 2015 05: 20
                  0
                  Radio-transparent armor is also unprotected, like radio-opaque, and after breaking through the submunition it will crumble everything there, or each element of the AFAR must be fenced off with a thick partition from another.
                  You can just slap this shield with liquid metal in the T-1000 style and then take it off and put on another one if you have time before the second wave of "gifts". laughing
              2. Scraptor
                Scraptor 1 August 2015 05: 13
                0
                All the same, a boot for the phone is needed ... wink
              3. Scraptor
                Scraptor 1 August 2015 05: 25
                0
                By the way, you’re comrade to make an armored aircraft carrier (he even refused artillery here, so the GK tower in the middle of the flight deck is no longer needed) for some reason stubbornly ignores ...
    3. yehat
      yehat 31 July 2015 18: 15
      0
      you are somehow strange describing a reservation
      in fact, by World War II, most well-defended ships had spaced armor, against which the cumulative charges were extremely ineffective.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 July 2015 19: 32
        0
        Quote: yehat
        in fact, by World War II, most well-defended ships had spaced armor, against which the cumulative charges were extremely ineffective.

        Against HPLC, yes. But on the LC, in addition to the high-frequency liquid (cellar, power plant, digital-to-analog coder, etc.), there are a lot of critically important systems issued for armor.
        Say, the upper UVP covers (or you propose to make them from 150 mm armor). Or headlights / optics. Or posts in add-ons.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 31 July 2015 20: 54
          -1
          Correctly. But getting into the radar and getting into the hull in general is not the same thing. In addition, it is precisely the holes in the board at the waterline level that lead to rapid flooding, and with broken add-ons and serviceable engines there is a chance to escape.
          1. K-50
            K-50 31 July 2015 23: 22
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027
            with broken add-ons and serviceable engines there is a chance to escape.

            Even if he gets away, it’s not a fact that he will have time to complete a combat mission.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 31 July 2015 23: 41
              -1
              Say which is better:
              a) the ship could not complete the task and went to the bottom with the whole crew.
              b) the ship was unable to fulfill the combat mission, but managed to get to the base with the crew on board and the possibility of repair.
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 1 August 2015 05: 47
            0
            Anti-radar missile? bully
            The second wave will be in the housing for the engines or in the steering compartment. Have you read about Bismarck? And then they will finish off from the torpedo boats of 1905 release.
          3. yehat
            yehat 5 August 2015 01: 05
            0
            combat stability is also important for the military. super-powered ship that is easy to pull out of battle, weak unit
        2. Santa Fe
          31 July 2015 21: 06
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Say, the upper UVP covers (or you suggest making them from 150-mm armor).

          Yes

          ammunition is an essential element that is potentially vulnerable and requires special protection
        3. yehat
          yehat 13 August 2015 18: 20
          0
          against such targets, cumulative charges apply strangely
          landmines are much more effective.
  17. shans2
    shans2 31 July 2015 10: 29
    0
    Quote: RPG_
    In half it will not work, there is a citadel and the most armored place. In order to break it is necessary 2-3 kT under the belly, but you still need to deliver it somehow.


    Yes, stop whistling, you look like an idiot, "Novorossiysk" was detonated with explosives less than a ton, water is 800 times denser than air.
  18. tomket
    tomket 31 July 2015 10: 39
    +2
    Oleg, do not substitute concepts. A) Battleships were created before the war for the classic battle as part of a squadron at long distances. Due to the fact that they have become an expensive toy, this very squadron already few countries could afford to assemble and send, without the risk of getting a catastrophe on a national scale. Because the German battleships degenerated into simple raiders. "Feats" of "Gneisenau" and "Scharnhorst" will plug any auxiliary cruiser in the belt. Just to convert a boat into an auxiliary cruiser, you do not need to exhaust a lot of metal, which would be enough for a tank group. B) Speaking about "Taiho" you diligently forget about "Shinano", which was from the same project as "Yamato", but it did not show miracles of vitality. Could it be a matter of the experience and cohesiveness of the crews? It should be noted that it was not the battleship that lost the supremacy at sea to the aircraft carrier, but the degenerated fleet of battleships to the fleet of aircraft carriers. The battleship, which was created as the ruler of the seas, by the end of the war rolled down to the ocean monitor with a large number of anti-aircraft guns, which fired at the beaches.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 10: 51
      0
      Quote: tomket
      which was from the same project as the Yamato, however, it showed no miracles of vitality.

      He walked for seven hours on his own, having received four torpedoes and all on one side

      1. Sinano was unfinished, with unsealed bulkheads
      2. The crew stepped onto his deck for 2 days before going to sea. sailors had no idea about the ship and the plan of its compartments and premises

      all this has been discussed many times
      1. tomket
        tomket 31 July 2015 11: 03
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2. The crew stepped onto his deck for 2 days before going to sea. sailors had no idea about the ship and the plan of its compartments and premises

        And all this does not apply to "Taiho" ???
        1. Santa Fe
          31 July 2015 11: 12
          0
          Quote: tomket
          And all this does not apply to "Taiho"

          No, there was a detonation of gasoline vapors, turning the ship inside out

          as on AB Lexington
          1. tomket
            tomket 31 July 2015 11: 23
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            No, there was a detonation of gasoline vapors, turning the ship inside out

            as on AB Lexington

            But was it not a consequence of the illiteracy of the crew ???
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 31 July 2015 18: 55
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            as on AB Lexington

            The "Lex" tried its own RepDiv aircraft carrier.
            * Have you read WDR Lexington? This is just a song - in 1940, for these two AB, BuShip issued a prescription - before adopting the system for filling empty containers and their CO2 fittings, keep the rooms around the jet fuel tanks empty, under no circumstances filling them with liquids. Jet fuel was stored there in tanks in the bow of the hull, approximately in the area of ​​the bow of the aircraft.
            On May 7, 1942, the ballast and fresh tanks around the starboard fuel tanks were empty, as prescribed, outside the left-hand side - they were filled with fresh water. Torpedoes hit the port side ... in fact, in the tank area - only one of them. They did not inspect the PTZ in this district, came to the conclusion that it withstood the blow, but the exhaust ventilation systems in the area of ​​the well of the first elevator were damaged - therefore, the shift was removed from there. This is the aggregate compartment of the hydraulic motors of the elevator itself, filter cofferdam and ... emergency GDR, which (and what will happen to him) was left in operation! Indoor ventilation. Under the conditions of full operability of the ship's GTG and their presence under load.
            (c) M. Tokarev
      2. yehat
        yehat 13 August 2015 18: 22
        0
        I also add that the new crew is almost very weak in the struggle for the survivability of the ship, because did not go through real training and cohesion of groups.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 31 July 2015 11: 59
      0
      So how much were Yamato and Musashi degenerate?
      1. tomket
        tomket 31 July 2015 13: 09
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        So how much were Yamato and Musashi degenerate?

        as our Lord Christ commanded, judge by their fruits. That is, according to the results. Kaptsov's fabrications about how they pulled aviation over themselves do not even cause a smile. Neither give nor take the mechanized corps, which disrupted the pace of "Barbarossa".
  19. Alex_59
    Alex_59 31 July 2015 10: 52
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: Alex_59
    The most powerful of them weighs 30 grams and breaks through 1200 mm barriers giving a funnel with a diameter of 22 mm.

    I can personally drive a shovel into the ground by 300 mm
    but I’m unlikely to leave even Tsarpin on the armor of the tank

    Inlet Diameter, mm - 10-20 millimeters
    What is the diameter of the bore? 3 mm?
    Honestly - I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter 516 holes with a diameter of 3 mm in an area of ​​0,2 m2 - I think that even you and your shovel will break this sieve.
    You can continue to live in the comfortable world of your battleships by denying the laws of physics and reality. If it will be so pleasant for you - consider that in our verbal battle I lost, for God's sake.
    1. kord1215
      kord1215 31 July 2015 11: 18
      +1
      The dimensions of the ship allow you to place the main armor behind an additional screen, which will make the penetration method that you proposed not effective. This solution of two vertical barriers was already used on Italian battleships of the Second World War, in addition, for some reason no one remembers that the main armor belt was always at the waterline level, and the rocket goes a couple of meters higher, well, it will carry superstructures, but buoyancy will not suffer catastrophic.
  20. Aasdem
    Aasdem 31 July 2015 10: 55
    +1
    Is the “Yamato” problem a mismatch between the costs of its construction and the result achieved? The battleship was built, fought and accepted a heroic death. The enemy had to use the whole air army, pulling aircraft carriers into the 8 area. So what more?


    Evaluating the Yamato, many forget that it was not designed for solo voyages, but just for action in a squadron, including AUG. In fact, these battleships were supposed to become a "battering ram" of the Japanese AUG, protecting aircraft carriers from attacks from the sea and from the air, "dragging" them to attack strategic areas of the ocean.
    1. tomket
      tomket 31 July 2015 11: 19
      0
      Quote: Aasdem
      that it was not designed for solo swimming,

      And where did you see that the ship would be sent in his right mind alone? It seems only the Dreadnought single-handedly sank an enemy ship (submarine).
      1. qwert
        qwert 31 July 2015 12: 01
        -1
        Quote: tomket
        only the Dreadnought single-handedly sank an enemy ship (submarine).
        he also just walked at the head of the squadron.
        1. tomket
          tomket 31 July 2015 13: 05
          -1
          Quote: qwert
          he also just walked at the head of the squadron.

          he was assisted in drowning ????
          1. yehat
            yehat 13 August 2015 18: 42
            0
            moral)))
  21. qwert
    qwert 31 July 2015 12: 00
    -1
    Quote: mgfly
    I don’t agree - I doubt that PCRs are capable of breaking through 30 cm armored steel.

    Now, after all, most of the cumulative ammunition is tandem. What prevents to make tandem ammunition for SCRC? The first is cumulative, the second is high-explosive. The first prints armor up to 700mm thick, the second explodes already inside. A formidable battleship draws water, gets trim and drowns. The public is rampant .... hi
  22. alovrov
    alovrov 31 July 2015 12: 13
    +2
    Reading the articles of respected Oleg, you might think that the main combat task of the superbattleship is to absorb missiles and torpedoes launched into it. This is some kind of wretched and unrealistic combat mission. It would be worth reflecting on what BATTLE TASKS hypothetical modern battleships can solve, and especially if there are such problems in nature that cannot be solved by cheaper means.
    Iowa, shooting with suitcases from the time of the Second World War of Lebanese bearded men, looked sorry. Moreover, the main argument of the Pentagon in favor of its use was that the shells are cheap, there are a lot of them, the shelf life has expired and you have to put them somewhere. Well, instead of expensive missiles.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 31 July 2015 12: 33
      0
      Moreover, she overshot a couple of times past the Syrians (and not Lebanese), killing under 1000 people in only one Druze village, and then the Syrians lightly kicked the AUG (the only case in history after WWII) with their aircraft.
  23. U-47
    U-47 31 July 2015 14: 21
    0
    Interestingly, have you already remembered “Roma”? Or not yet? Very entertaining report of the Italian commission)
  24. Jager
    Jager 31 July 2015 15: 46
    0
    About hospodi ... spread reviews on the whole novel.
    And how beautiful "North Carolina" is in the photo. Like a ghost of the old days, power and steel behind the fog.
  25. sergevl
    sergevl 31 July 2015 16: 08
    +1
    Reading the articles of respected Oleg, you might think that the main combat task of the superbattleship is to absorb missiles and torpedoes launched into it. This is some kind of wretched and unrealistic combat mission.
    ------------------------------
    Not a task, but let’s say so - a free bonus. )) combat survivability evolved as a result of a hundred years of the existence of the armored fleet.
    by the way, in the fleet the commander of the ship does not have a cozy headquarters with women in the rear. Ships go to the bottom with the commanders. No one wants to go into ice water 4 km in depth.
    Yes, and complicating the task of drowning a single ship, we sharply increase the outfit of the forces of the entire fleet.
    For example, to sink 5 Queen Elizabeth series battleships and 4 Royal Oak series battleships scattered across the ocean and bases, you need a lot of planes and submarines. And then, the task was impossible. ))))


    It would be worth reflecting on what BATTLE TASKS hypothetical modern battleships can solve, and especially if there are such problems in nature that cannot be solved by cheaper means.
    Iowa, shooting with suitcases from the time of the Second World War of Lebanese bearded men, looked sorry.
    -----------------------------------------

    It would be worthwhile first of all to think about why the same Iowa looks the way it was built.
    9 trunks - the need for such a number of trunks is associated with a low percentage of hits - 3-5% and, at the same time, the ability to observe bursts of falls with optical instruments.

    Today’s battleship could carry 2-3 guns - with a hit percentage of 30-45%. This means the use of guided ammunition. Guided ammunition can and should be fired from smooth-bore guns - they are cheaper and easier to manufacture - no need to cut into the barrel for months. Modern materials and alloys will provide greater strength and lower barrel weight. Modern armor with ceramic elements will be much stronger and lighter than the old homogeneous.

    Well and so on throughout the conservatory ..... A modern battleship will fit in the displacement of the battleships of the early 20th century. A speed of 33 knots is absolutely superfluous - a modest 25 knots will be enough, we will have a power plant or an automated control system in a separate modular compartment, or a gas turbine unit.

    Instead of vulnerable propellers with heavy multi-hundreds of shafts - water cannons hidden in the contours of the hull.

    No middle or universal gauge needed.

    and so on, further, further. Drawings by the way, I’m ready, there are many options, we can start building. )))))))
    1. alovrov
      alovrov 31 July 2015 17: 29
      0
      It would be worthwhile first of all to think about why the same Iowa looks the way it was built.
      9 trunks - the need for such a number of trunks is associated with a low percentage of hits - 3-5% and, at the same time, the ability to observe bursts of falls with optical instruments.

      ---------------------------

      Iowa was made for WWII missions, hence the look. If we take at least the operational-tactical level, then there is no task to drown the enemy battleship or withstand 1000 hits of exosets. It is necessary to stop the enemy’s naval communications, defend their own, support the offensive of the ground forces, defend the position area of ​​the seamen, etc. Which of these can make a battleship better than others? And I'm not saying that I can’t. I’m saying that it’s a little naive to analyze a military unit according to criteria that do not take into account the actual combat use, from the point of view of abstract enthusiasm with smooth lines of superstructures.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 20
        0
        Quote: alovrov
        why the same Iowa looks like it was built

        The answer is simple - the Panama Canal.
        But the Montans did not go, because the Americans realized that the battleships had outlived their own.
      2. sergevl
        sergevl 31 July 2015 23: 28
        0
        Quote: alovrov

        Iowa was made for WWII missions, hence the look. If we take at least the operational-tactical level, then there is no task to drown the enemy battleship or withstand 1000 hits of exosets. It is necessary to stop the enemy’s naval communications, defend their own, support the offensive of the ground forces, defend the position area of ​​the seamen, etc. Which of these can make a battleship better than others? And I'm not saying that I can’t. I’m saying that it’s a little naive to analyze a military unit according to criteria that do not take into account the actual combat use, from the point of view of abstract enthusiasm with smooth lines of superstructures.


        Just for the battleship there is a task - to sink the enemy battleship, for example the German ones - Baden-Bayern were built as a response to Queen Elizabeth. Yamato had to sink any battleship in the world, the pocket battleship Deutschland - to escape from any LC, Dunkirk and Scharnhorst were direct counterparts, and so on. Designers calculated all this by thousands of man-years of work. For example, a zone of free maneuvering, etc.
        Iowa was built just to confront the Yamats ....

        What can a battleship (armored art. Ship) do in the 21st century?
        1. To demand for his drowning such an outfit of forces that the enemy simply does not have. For example, countries that do not own nuclear weapons and do not have NW RCC and do not have the proper number of submarines - how many are there in the world? So, 4 battleships of 20 tons sail to the shores of such a country. And from a distance of 000 km from the coast they begin methodically, with the help of projectiles, without wasting the lives of pilots, to turn the entire coast of the country and the surrounding areas into a desert. At the same time, the victim country cannot do ANYTHING. Nothing. He took the position of a battleship - fired 300 shells on the barrel in 100 minutes - and went five hundred miles offshore to reload the ammunition.
      3. yehat
        yehat 13 August 2015 18: 47
        0
        Iowa was created with excessive displacement and huge autonomy as an escort battleship to protect communications (for example, Italians did the opposite because of the small size of their TVD!)
        9 guns - because of the sighting system for accurate salvo.
        For example, the Russians had their own system for Ishmael and had 12 guns.
        Now computational complexes can do without shooting at all.
    2. Kvazar
      Kvazar 31 July 2015 22: 06
      +1
      20k tons is a modern destroyer ..... battleship tonnage 140 160k tons. This time .... 2 guns few at least 3 towers. a mortar from 600 to 1200mm has already been launched where the art is rocket armament ... 5-10 tons of warhead ..... 100-150km range maximum (real 30- = 50km 10t warhead ..... The rest of the rocket is from vertical bars. In general, if you look at the concept of the battleships is a tri-displacement with a displacement of 720.000 tons and more ... With a triple power plant (nuclear in the center, diesel and gas turbine in the floats, there are all universal vertical missiles in the same place). not long. The whole problem is the price, they will drown tiao in the glabalka. for local boats for 10 lard bachey too much .... there for the eyes of a battleship in 160k is enough for 3 ljaoda bachei ....
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 31 July 2015 23: 35
        0
        Quote: Kvazar
        20k tons is a modern destroyer ..... battleship tonnage 140 160k tons

        It's not about the name, the destroyer battleship ... Rather, it makes sense to take a heavy cruiser as a basis - booking increases survivability, but does not turn the ship into something monstrous - somewhere around 20-30 thousand tons.
        Quote: Kvazar
        2 guns few at least 3 towers. a mortar from 600 to 1200 mm was already projected

        What for? Artillery is still an auxiliary weapon, another thing is that when I saw the "Nakhimov" with its "terrible cannon" of as much as 130 mm caliber, I was spinning in my head - and why is it needed at all, it would be better to add anti-aircraft missiles. One tower with a couple of 203-250 mm is quite enough, the rest of the rocket.
  26. Iraclius
    Iraclius 31 July 2015 16: 44
    -1
    Oleg’s enthusiastic words about the anti-aircraft power of the capital ships of WWII amused him. Atlanta-class air defense cruisers are the quintessence of stupidity. Absolutely useless ship that the Yankees themselves recognized. The data on aircraft shot down by anti-aircraft artillery would seem impressive. But - compare with aviation losses from aviation and everything will fall into place. And this is taking into account the fact that the Yankees had perfect time control systems, radar, analog type ballistic computers and shells with radio fuses.
    Most of the losses were due to aviation. The Japanese drowning of HMS Prince of Wales and Ripalsa in compound Z is a canonical example.
    About the effectiveness of artillery fire on ships - a battle near the Komandorski Islands with a zero result for the fleets of rivals. We omit about strategic results.
    Conclusion? Capital ships, in fact, were used to support the landing as floating artillery platforms. How it all began with the French battleships near Sevastopol during the Crimean War, it ended.

    ***
    On matters of improving the security of modern ships, I agree with Oleg. Example - Falklands, the question has been chewed many times.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 July 2015 18: 42
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      Atlanta-class air defense cruisers are the quintessence of stupidity. Absolutely useless ship that the Yankees themselves recognized

      Hmm ... and who told you that Atlanta is an air defense missile defense system?
      Atlanta was originally an EM support cruiser and scout. A sort of "novik-first" in a new way or "superleader". Hence all his problems in the role of the anti-aircraft missile defense, which is unusual for him - first of all, the clearly insufficient number of SUAO for 127/38 towers - only 2 sets of Mark 37 for 8 towers. That is, the station wagons could simultaneously fire at only 2 targets.
      This was enough for EM work - the fire of 3-4 towers was just enough to disable the ship. But for air defense, such a concentration of fire was excessive, plus, when changing targets, we had to wait until the SUAO worked out data on a new target (instead of quickly switching fire between targets taken in advance for tracking). For the role of the CD air defense "Atlanta" had to have at least 4 Mark 37.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 46
        0
        Designed based on the limitations of the Washington Treaty as a light cruiser. It was used as an air defense cruiser, the benefit of universal-caliber guns was enough. And in the first and second roles showed its complete failure. request
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 31 July 2015 20: 02
          0
          Quote: Iraclius
          Designed based on the limitations of the Washington Treaty as a light cruiser. It was used as an air defense cruiser, the benefit of universal-caliber guns was enough. And in the first and second roles showed its complete failure.

          Atlanta was designed as a scout and leader of the EM fleets - for the future general battle in the Mandated Territories. And according to the planned purpose, these CDs were practically not used.
          Instead of reconnaissance and leading, the Atlanta EMs were first put into the line of the KR under the fire of the Japanese MRT. And then they began to use it in another unplanned role - as an air defense missile defense system.
          The presence of universal guns alone does not mean anything - because according to the recall of the commander of the AV Enterprise without SUAO 127/38, it is only suitable for firing at horizontal bombers at medium altitudes. "Shooting and shooting are two different things.". We need an adequate SUAO. But with the SUAO for anti-aircraft fire, Atlant was bad - too little.
          1. Iraclius
            Iraclius 31 July 2015 20: 39
            0
            What contradicts what I said above in your statement? The ship is useless. The power of anti-aircraft artillery is critically small. AND?
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 August 2015 04: 29
      0
      Yes, only the Americans drowned almost all of the Japanese heavy ships with strategic B-17s and B-29s not only in bases but also at sea. Only two bombers passed cross-to-cross, the battleship dodged from one and received from the second to the deck.
      Well, it’s just like here, only it was just one because on an immovable strip
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_runway_craters.jpg
    3. yehat
      yehat 13 August 2015 18: 52
      0
      Ripals as an example of survivability is not correctly cited - it is still a battlecruiser, and not a fully-protected battleship.
      For the same reason, Hood so quickly congregated in a shootout with Bismarck - it was not a fully protected ship.
      Correctly bring survivability of these battleships - Bismarck, Yamato, etc. and she is impressive.
      besides, the British only in the last years before the war reached the technological level of the Germans in ensuring survivability during the First World War, so that most of their ships were openly insecurely protected.
  27. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 31 July 2015 16: 54
    0
    I disagree with the author on what he wrote about the Italian navy. He wrote that the Italians' failures were not caused by "bad command", but by the fact that the means of observation and fire control on the Italian ships were worse than those of the Allies, and there were no radars at all. This is not true. The Italian optical-mechanical fire control systems of the "Galileo" company, etc., especially the main caliber, were even better than those of the Allies. Air defense control and guidance systems at the beginning of the war were not inferior to the systems of the allies and only by the end of the war they began to become somewhat outdated. Radars also appeared on large ships at the beginning of the war and were improved by its end, but they were really inferior to those of the allies in terms of their qualities. corresponded approximately to the German ones that appeared at the same time and the Japanese at the end of the war. But with their competent use, they could well greatly increase the effectiveness of detecting and defeating the enemy. So, it was not the "quality" of the ships and their systems that influenced the disgusting use of its Navy by Italy, namely its mediocre management, that it is enough to read the memoirs of the Italian sailors of the highest command personnel - their personal heroism is praised there and there is always a complaint about "bad weather", then "fateful coincidence". It is not for nothing that the commander-in-chief of the British Navy in the Mediterranean, describing the actions of his Italian opponents, was critical of the command of the Italian Navy and highly praised the qualities of Italian ships and in the end concluded: “In the end, the Italians always built ships better than they knew how to fight on them .. . ". By the way, here is a detailed description of the ships of the "Littorio" class:
    http://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:Littorio_%281937%29
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 July 2015 18: 36
      +1
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      So, it was not the "quality" of the ships and their systems that influenced the disgusting use of its Navy by Italy, namely its mediocre management, that it is enough to read the memoirs of Italian sailors of the highest command staff - their personal heroism is praised there and there is always a "bad weather", then "fateful coincidence".

      Truth in the middle. smile

      There were technical problems in the Italian fleet. For example, the spread of the weights of charges / projectiles from batch to batch and non-observance of the temperature regime in the cellars. As a result, the guns showed excellent results only on tests (with shells and charges from the same batch). And when firing charges and shells received "mixed" from naval warehouses, dispersion increased many times.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 July 2015 18: 51
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The Italian optical-mechanical fire control systems of the "Galileo" company, etc., especially the main caliber, were even better than those of the Allies.

      Even the Italians themselves spoke of "approximate equality". And given that the Italian MSA could not even compensate for the pitching of the ship, I have great doubts about that.
      In addition, the Achilles heel of the Italians had large tolerances for the mass of shells (because of which shells of the same caliber and type had different weights and different ballistics), charge filling (the same thing) and, as a result, large dispersion. It must be said that Italians periodically sought cover from their 381 mm, but they couldn’t get there even once - and this is precisely a matter of dispersion.
  28. Iraclius
    Iraclius 31 July 2015 16: 57
    0
    My grandfather served at the Novorossiysk LK (formerly Giulio Cesare) before its destruction and also said that the optics and the LMS as a whole were of very high quality there.
  29. kig
    kig 31 July 2015 17: 07
    +2
    The Americans in the 80s armed their Iowa with the Tomahawks. It was not possible to try them in practice, and thank God, most likely they would not be found equal in the whole world.
    1. alovrov
      alovrov 31 July 2015 17: 32
      0
      Oga, of course. The Tomahawk on the battleship and the Tomahawk on the submarine are two very big differences.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 22
        -1
        What is the difference? After WWII, the Americans used their armored junk solely as floating artillery platforms to bombard the coast. In this sense, the installation of the Tomahawks looks more than a logical step.
  30. yehat
    yehat 31 July 2015 18: 04
    +1
    As for the Italian fleet, I do not agree with the author of the article: they would have managed without a radar
    the main problem of the fleet and naval aviation was the acute shortage of fuel, which was due to the fact that Hitler unexpectedly for Italy (a year earlier) dragged it into the war and the fuel reserves for the army were not created on time, so the fleet gave up its reserves, which had a catastrophic effect on his ability to be active.

    Well, one more thing: I am very skeptical about the Italian tendency to make quick-fire battleships. Practice has shown that the fire was very inaccurate
    and there was no use for rate of fire, and there wasn’t enough speed to keep a comfortable distance.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 August 2015 04: 42
      0
      Here the topic is that all this audience was on a short leash by the American Rockefellers (and before that also by the English and Dutch) they somehow do not like ... wink
  31. Kvazar
    Kvazar 31 July 2015 18: 40
    +1
    Funny you) Is it nothing that modern steels are 2,8 times superior to armored steels of the 40s? The equivalent thickness of 400mm is 1100mm of old armor. Who told you what to do monolith? even a package of dynamic protection + 200mm steel + reflective sheets + 100 + reflective sheets + 100mm steel + 2-3 meters of air (crew cabins for example) + 50mm against fragments. What are you going to cut through all this is not completely clear ... Yes, all this must be covered by KAZ. Good luck to damage))) Well, either nuclear weapons or missiles weighing 15-20 tons ....

    Move on. Three-zone air defense from C500 to AK630. RCC composition well, then who wants what. All vertical launch installations are universal pieces that way for 400-500 cells (with the possibility of flooding).

    GK artillery was a proposal for the abandonment of the standard armament of the towers. With the transition to mortar art rocket launchers. You can develop up to 10 tonnes of ammunition with a caliber of 1000-1200 mm (for firing no further than 25-30 km) on such a displacement, the rest is actually missiles.))))
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 31 July 2015 18: 49
      0
      Sound the cost of the proposed solutions for a ship with a displacement in the area of ​​at least 20000 tons. Then we'll talk ... In the meantime, wet dreams.

      For starters - how did the Exoset subsonic missile manage to overcome the ship (perfect at that time!) Air defense of Sheffield destroyer?

      ***
      About ship KAZ - generally killed. laughing
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 July 2015 20: 09
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        For starters - how did the Exoset subsonic missile manage to overcome the ship (perfect at that time!) Air defense of Sheffield destroyer?

        Ahem ... who is this about Sheffield's air defense?
        Type 42 is a low-budget EV, on which everything was sacrificed to the Ministry of Finance. "Sea Dart" at that time was still a raw complex (20 seconds reaction time, 4,5 km - a dead zone), and the type 42 REO had problems with EMC.

        In addition, the EM itself was in the RL patrol and was not covered by other means of air defense of the compound.
      2. Kvazar
        Kvazar 31 July 2015 20: 43
        0
        20k is a destroyer .... modern ..... let's go from reality. the cost of modern armor is 1 Lyama rubles per circle per linear ton (armor itself Kevlar steel rubber ceramics and co), together with manufacturing, considering that not everywhere combined will come out a little cheaper .... Mass of Linkor is estimated at 160 thousand tons. Of these, the mass is 70.000 tons Total: the cost of booking from a battleship of 140kt will be 70 lard rubles, or approximately the cost of three mistrals. For the sake of salvation, we say that breaking through the defense of the destroyer and the battleship in the warrant is a bit different things .... And no one denies that you can’t break through it here they say that they will break through anyway. Only having a modern reservation immediately disappear almost all the panels that are in service. and in order to drown or severely damage it will be necessary to break through and detonate several dozen rockets with a launch mass of 15-30 tons. That is, aviation immediately disappears as a carrier. Plus, these missiles must have .... and this is hefty fucking. plus even a strike of 3-4 echelons consisting of 100-150 missiles in each exoquette or harpoon class will simply estimate to e ... m all that is without armor and will damage it very much (repair for at least a couple of years) but they won’t be able to drown . And now the question. What would Georgia or Ukraine do if a battleship of 160 tons would start bombarding with 5-10 tons of ammunition all that is from cutting a berig into a depth of 100-150 km? And what would they be going to control him with?
      3. Scraptor
        Scraptor 1 August 2015 04: 59
        0
        One witch called by the way, and in order to talk to her through an American satellite, the protection system was turned off.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
        But in general, the ships had weak air defense, since the Melkobrtansky fleet was then imprisoned for anti-aircraft defense. He needed the same harriers in a quantity of only 4-5 pieces on each of the three headquarters ships with a continuous flight deck in order to drive away or shoot down long-range reconnaissance aircraft Tu-95 and Tu-142, which had already hunted for the English SSBNs in freedom of fire. Tu-22 then did not know how to work on nuclear submarines.
    2. tokens2
      tokens2 31 July 2015 19: 06
      -1
      Funny you) Is it nothing that modern steels are 2,8 times superior to armored steels of the 40s? The equivalent thickness of 400mm is 1100mm of old armor. Who told you what to do monolith? even a package of dynamic protection + 200mm steel + reflective sheets + 100 + reflective sheets + 100mm steel + 2-3 meters of air (crew cabins for example) + 50mm against fragments.

      And that the rocket will "strive" to hit the side?
      sorry .. and the bottom laughing the rocket will not be able (with the development of NTP) to "wrap"?
      This is not a tank ... to destroy not a feeble sum from the country's GDP ... you can also swarm missiles.
      Although ... It is best to drown such monsters at key points in the world. For shipping. laughing
      However, the article +. History.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  32. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 July 2015 18: 43
    0
    Good article! I like it:)))
  33. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 31 July 2015 19: 43
    0
    “Yamato” also participated in the shooting of jeeps. Whether he hit at least once is unknown, but the essence of the battle was different. The Japanese had a chance to kill the entire American landing, and the Yamato guns would have been covered in blood on the very breech.

    Bgggg ... didn't know the Yamato could navigate land. smile
    For, by the time Kurita’s compound arrived, the landing had already been landed.
  34. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 31 July 2015 19: 49
    +1
    These are hikes of the American LC as part of high-speed aircraft carrier compounds, where the battleships were used as powerful anti-aircraft platforms. The most famous fight “South Dakota”. Covering his compound in a battle at Santa Cruz, the battleship shot down 26 Japanese aircraft. Even if you divide the stated figure by two - the achievement of “South Dakota” was a real military-technical record. But the most important thing: having such a powerful air defense “umbrella”, not one of the ships of the compound suffered serious damage.

    Do not read American reports at dinner. smile

    Currently, 7-8 downed vehicles are recognized as SODAK. Numeral 26 shot down - This is from the speech of the commander of this LC to the commission, which decided to continue building the LC and new orders for ships of this class.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 July 2015 21: 08
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Currently, 7-8 downed vehicles are recognized as SODAK.

      This is an incredible value for that time.
  35. barbiturate
    barbiturate 31 July 2015 21: 03
    +1
    I liked the article and I also see a ship similar in concept to the battleships of the past as part of modern fleets.
  36. K-50
    K-50 31 July 2015 21: 55
    +3
    Quote: Russian Uzbek
    the advent of RCC makes these huge floating targets pointless ...

    Not proven.
  37. Taoist
    Taoist 1 August 2015 11: 55
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    one of the four headlamps of the Cole destroyer, after the explosion (300 kg bag of TNT at the very side)
    functioning restored after 15 minutes


    Those. Can't you see the difference between the explosion of a "bag of TNT" and the covering of a cloud of cumulative fragmentation submunitions? OK. I have no more questions ... It is a pity that it is impossible to put a natural experience by putting you on such an armored galosh and shmalnuv on it ... I think that the dispute would have ended there - due to the lack of a subject for discussion.
    By the way, about the "connection" and lifting antennas ... Actually, with serious opposition (we don't take the Papuans), all these "satellite phones in the pockets of officers" as well as all wireless communication lines in general are choking nafig.
  38. Roman 11
    Roman 11 1 August 2015 12: 56
    0
    Guys, something hit the head off - what if the truth separated ship to do. Something reminiscent of a stationary barge) i.e. the armored platform itself, with a steam-powered power plant, fire-fighting system, armored, with a separate PTZ and PRZ hull ...... the platform is uninhabited, all weapons, power plants and fire-extinguishing systems are automated. To it is added a self-propelled command post (on a diesel engine), inhabited, with all computing devices, radars and other stuffing. Moreover, both components are separate in the voyage - let's say they came up from the command post, fed the control cable and you can control the platform, + it also serves as a tanker for the command post ...... Something thought slipped, like an absurdity ...... and then think if - then who knows?
  39. sergevl
    sergevl 1 August 2015 15: 16
    +3
    Quote: Novel 11
    Guys, something hit the head off - what if the truth separated ship to do. Something reminiscent of a stationary barge) i.e. the armored platform itself, with a steam-powered power plant, fire-fighting system, armored, with a separate PTZ and PRZ hull ...... the platform is uninhabited, all weapons, power plants and fire-extinguishing systems are automated. To it is added a self-propelled command post (on a diesel engine), inhabited, with all computing devices, radars and other stuffing. Moreover, both components are separate in the voyage - let's say they came up from the command post, fed the control cable and you can control the platform, + it also serves as a tanker for the command post ...... Something thought slipped, like an absurdity ...... and then think if - then who knows?


    A fully automated ship is unlikely to work, rather the most automated one, with a small crew. Who has, for example, a boat or a helicopter to get off the wrecked ship. The ship itself should not have any bulky and vulnerable radar antennas, waveguides, and other crap. In the style of Utland battleships. A minimum of combustible materials, a minimum of cable routes, do not even paint it so that there is no fire. Non-combustible inorganic, armor, steel and concrete form a citadel inside which - guns, ammunition storage, power drives for reloading guns, guidance, power plant, water cannons and a diesel generator. powerful fire extinguishing system - unmanned compartments can be filled with carbon dioxide, nitrogen or argon by default so that there is no fire. The watchman goes to check the compartments in the IDA. All that this ship needs to "know" - the angle of inclination of the guns, the direction of the shot, the type of ammunition, the point of impact of the ammunition - is started via an external coded communication channel. The ship must be completely primitive and very tenacious - to the point of filling the holds with a mixture of foam and expanded clay balls = so that even a broken one does not sink into a sieve.
    There should be many such ships in the Russian fleet - 10 pieces in the Northern Fleet, 20 pieces in the Pacific Fleet (many islands) 10 pieces in the Baltic, 6 pieces in the Black Sea Fleet. Building them should be quick and easy.
    The trick is that it will be difficult and long to destroy all these ships at once and suddenly, and using atomic charges these battleships themselves can cause unacceptable damage to any aggressor.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 2 August 2015 15: 10
      0
      Quote: sergevl
      In the style of battleships of yutland.

      I agree with everything, but the guns are neither to power, nor to the city ..... Sorry. The platform should have most of the long-range anti-ship missiles, the long-range air defense missile system is also 150 km long, everything ...... part of the BIUS is towed as an ASU in an underwater position, the command post with the BIUS is a mini-submarine.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 3 August 2015 00: 07
        0
        changing flash drives on it - gnomes.
  40. barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2015 15: 52
    +1
    I see a modern battleship as (surface and approximate): a displacement of 25-30 thousand tons, integrated armor protection providing low vulnerability to modern anti-ship missiles and minimizing damage in armored volumes, a pair of 3 gun turrets of a caliber significantly higher than 130-152 mm, for example 305 - 356 mm, and maybe more (406), pieces of 200 KR and anti-ship missiles in any proportion and several UAVs in an armored hangar for reconnaissance and adjustment of artillery fire - target designation for missiles on board. The air defense will be on escort ships, except for the near radius, there will be their own machines with their own detection and guidance systems, as well as a powerful anti-aircraft missile system (for example, based on RBU 12000 or something like that). Everything else is already at will (for example, good electronic warfare systems). Such a ship will not be too expensive, but it will not, of course, become mass.

    The application seems to me like this: When the fleet is working against the enemy fleet, such a ship will be a highly protected arsenal capable of firing at the enemy for a long time and very massive missile salvos, while it itself will be able to withstand the enemy’s fire for a long time, and not crumble into spare parts from one or two anti-ship missiles ( like modern destroyers and cruisers), but with sudden fire contacts at comparatively short ranges (for example, 30-50km), they can quickly decide the outcome of the battle with artillery.

    Well, against the coast, in general, apart from aircraft carriers, nobody can really work in modern fleets, the force of large-caliber artillery when adjusting UAVs has nothing to compare with even in a strip say, say, 50 km from the coast, because the weather can stop the aircraft, but there is no such ship.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 2 August 2015 15: 23
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Well, and against the coast, in general, except for aircraft carriers, no one can really work in modern fleets

      And if quick-mount guides are mounted from Hail, Tornado and Hurricane?? Ammunition installations themselves may be in vehicles.
  41. Normal ok
    Normal ok 1 August 2015 16: 37
    0
    A few points about the "ease" of destroying a battleship:
    - the protection of the sides of the ship was carried out not only by using sheets of homogeneous armor, it was combined. For the armored belts there was a double side, then bunkers with coal (later tanks with water / oil), followed by armored bulkheads. Thus, the protection of the sides of the ship was several meters wide!
    - In addition, the thickness of the armored one of the same Yamato was 410mm.
    - Modern anti-ship ammunition, the same granites, are not designed to overcome such obstacles. They were calculated to destroy unarmored ships. Granite will simply smash into an armored belt without exploding.
    - A powerful anti-aircraft battleship will prevent most missiles from reaching their goal.
    - battleships act as part of a group - so you need to consider the air defense of the whole group.
    - the survivability of a ship with a displacement of 30-45 thousand tons is much higher than modern cruisers and destroyers, which even powerful granites are designed for.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 1 August 2015 17: 00
      +1
      You understand the difference — a relatively narrow belt, towers, barbetas of towers. Now the ship has a lot of places that you can’t book well, the same radar antennas, communication systems, UVP covers, etc.
      What modern RCC are not designed for? The warhead mass of Granite is 518-750 kg of explosives. What will happen to the battleship when a rocket hits it at a speed of 1,5 M and undermines the warhead?
      And what will be the use of over-protection of a battleship if radars are delivered by PRR?
      Naturally higher, but why is such a large and expensive ship?
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 1 August 2015 18: 09
        +1
        You gave Granit as the example of anti-ship missiles, and this is the most powerful of the anti-ship missiles in the world in fact - let's fantasize and reflect. The main feature of the battleship is in good security and will the main armor belt of the battleship be broken through Granite? Of course not, for armor penetration is not a Granite chip and the undermining of a 750kg high-explosive warhead will happen on board so what will happen? Surely it will loosen the armored plates, perhaps a leak will open, there may be a local break in the armored corps, is that all? I think yes, that’s it. There is practical experience in detonating a multi-hundred-kilogram explosive charge on an unarmored destroyer side (for example), and even if we increase the explosive mass by 2,5 times, then the protected side will be undermined by an order of magnitude, if not two orders of magnitude better. Will the battleship suffer from such an explosion? Of course, but it does not seem fatal)
        Everything is relative, agree? So imagine what will happen to a modern NOT armored ship when Granite hits? Or to the bottom or can not be restored)

        Well, about radars, I don’t understand the argument at all. Firstly, any modern ship has radars and this is no minus battleship compared to anyone else. Secondly, just a battleship you can not hang with clusters of antennas and radars, it does not need them for the role of a highly protected arsenal ship (in fact) with the possibility of powerful fire impact on the enemy artillery. Thirdly, one or two universal antennas are just on the battleship and can be quickly retracted when attacking in a well-protected space that closes and protects, if not from direct penetration by RCC, then from fairly large fragments with great kinetics.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 1 August 2015 19: 19
          +2
          No need to fantasize, just read the test results of Soviet anti-ship missiles.
          In 1957, the KSShch (starting mass-3 100 kg) with an inert warhead made a hole in the TKR "Stalingrad" (side 230-260 mm, deck-140-170) with 23 km in the form of a figure eight, 55 m2 in size. In 1961, she ripped open the EM deck along the ship like a can opener. In 1962, from a distance of 68 km, the KR pr.68 "Admiral Nakhimov" (16 300 tons, 100 mm side) pierced through the entrance in the form of a figure of 15 m2, the exit round, with an area of ​​8 m2. The spilled fuel caused a massive fire. Rescued 12 hours by the forces of the entire World Cup.
          In 1962, the P-35 (empty weight 2230, starting weight 4500, warhead-320 kg) pierced the leader of the EM "Kiev" (2500 tons ??) through and through.
          Please note, in all cases, warhead is inert.
          At Granite, the starting mass is 7 tons, the speed at the water is 1,5 M. It will break through without problems and explode inside. The fact of the matter is that it will be about the same thing, with the difference that the battleship will be more expensive. What makes you think that modern ships are not booked?
          Compare the range of application of naval artillery and anti-ship missiles, hit probability, and a list of possible carriers. Why fence an expensive battleship if the same missiles can be carried by the Ticonderoga or Burke?
          Naturally, this is not a minus, the point is that it is almost impossible to protect the antennas with passive means, and it’s not really necessary — for example, when the antennas are folded, the ship will not be able to use its own air defense systems, no, is there any point in such protection?
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 2 August 2015 11: 27
            0
            http://spec-naz.org/articles/contests/potoplenie_kreysera_krasnyy_kavkaz/

            here is the answer, read how they tested and where they got and what it proves, or rather nothing at all)

            I will quote from the article, if you do not want to read)
            From the tests of KS-1 Kometa (starting 2760 kg, cruising speed 1000-1200 km / h) on the cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz":
            Even if the “Comet” fell into the upper armored belt (25mm), what is strange about how a 2-ton transonic “blank” pierced a thin anti-fragmentation shield and, flying through internal unarmored bulkheads, tore a piece of the opposite side measuring 3 by 3 meters?
            Special attention is given to the description of how the wings of the rocket “were cut off like a piece of paper with scissors” when meeting even the smallest 25-mm barrier (and, possibly, if they hit the unarmored part of the body).

            This is a bad sign for those who hope to penetrate armor, relying only on speed and a large mass of modern missiles. In the indicated conditions, the kinetic energy of the body has little value against the background of its mechanical strength.

            Therefore, is it worth repeating that when striking a sufficiently thick armor (equivalent in thickness to booking cruisers and battle ships of the WWII era), the fuselage of ANY modern missile will remain outside. Wings will cut “like paper with scissors”. Stripping off the “plastic skin”, only the warhead will move forward. She is the very “penetrator”, which, perhaps, will penetrate the armor.
            In this case, the mass of warheads, even the most severe RCC is much inferior in mass and fur. strength armor-piercing shells large-caliber guns. Missile speed is also less. The situation will be aggravated by the ineffective form of the warhead and the missile layout itself (which is logical, because the rocket was not designed to overcome the armor).

            The combat fiction about the damage of “Stalingrad” (a hole in the form of a “eight” with an area of ​​55 sq. M) and a no less strange story of a missile hit “Admiral Nakhimov” raises a lot of doubts, since The presented official versions largely (and in some places completely) contradict logic, maritime history and common sense.
            1. Roman 11
              Roman 11 2 August 2015 16: 23
              0
              Quote: barbiturate
              From the tests of KS-1 Kometa (starting 2760 kg, cruising speed 1000-1200 km / h) on the cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz":

              It was half a century ago, and in the form of tests. Everything was different.
              Quote: barbiturate
              In this case, the mass of warheads, even the most severe RCC is much inferior in mass and fur. strength armor-piercing shells large-caliber guns. Missile speed is also less. The situation will be aggravated by the ineffective form of the warhead and the missile layout itself (which is logical, because the rocket was not designed to overcome the armor).

              It is now a matter of minutes to install a shaped charge on a rocket. And several of these "tough guys" will rest the soul of any WWII battleship from Yamato to Bismarck.
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 2 August 2015 19: 34
                0
                Quote: Novel 11
                It is now a matter of minutes to install a shaped charge on a rocket. And several of these "tough guys" will rest the soul of any WWII battleship from Yamato to Bismarck.


                Do not tell fairy tales, "it's a matter of a minute"))
                1. Roman 11
                  Roman 11 2 August 2015 20: 41
                  0
                  Quote: barbiturate
                  Do not tell fairy tales, "it's a matter of a minute"))

                  I don’t understand anything ...... are you clinging to words ?? The topic as an article is not specific, it allows for derogations and assumptions. Want to be right - to health. For my part, I think it’s very strange to know that the enemy has an armored ship and do not have the appropriate weapons in containers — this is how to go to Tsushima, or to leave Tallinn.
            2. strannik1985
              strannik1985 2 August 2015 18: 42
              0
              http://topwar.ru/73120-potoplenie-kreysera-krasnyy-kavkaz.html
              1- Why drag in planes?

              This is easily seen by looking at footage from the crash sites of aircraft. A blasphemous, but very indicative example: at the site of the fall of the huge liners there are no pits. When meeting with a relatively “soft” soil, the plane is smashed to smithereens, and the whole surrounding area is littered with its small fragments.

              The comparison is incorrect, since the volume and mass of a modern airbus and anti-ship missiles are not comparable. Yes, the plane is bigger, but it is heavier ... That's just the density (density = mass / volume) of the rocket differs from the density of the plane in a big way ... at times!
              But the aircraft engine of the crashed (this is an important point) plane goes deep into the ground.
              The plane crashes, it is not intended to hit the ground, and the plane's motion vector is never directed strictly below 90 ° to the ground, and its speed is not higher than the speed of sound in a collision. In contrast, the rocket is designed (!) To hit the target at the highest possible speed.
              Conclusion: FORGET ABOUT COMPARISON WITH AIRCRAFT ONCE AND FOREVER.

              2- To establish the dependence of armor penetration only on the caliber of a projectile is fundamentally wrong. Speed! Speed ​​is everything!

              ... a statement of the fact that the armor penetration characteristics of modern anti-ship missiles should be lower than those of shells of past eras. And if those ammunition did not penetrate the armor barriers, equal in thickness to the caliber of the projectile, then why would the “soft-bodied” KSSh and “Kometa” ...

              How to know exactly the armor penetration of a rocket? Or a shell? Problematic. And if not exactly, but at least approximately? And this is possible by comparing kinetic energy.

              The mass of the main caliber projectile of the battleship Yamato, in turn, is equal to 1460 kg. According to the well-known formula (E = mv ^ 2/2) at an initial speed of 780 m / s, its kinetic energy will be equal to 444 132 kJ (while on the flight to the target, the speed will slightly decrease due to air resistance)

              "Granite" has a mass of 7360 kg (takeoff), the mass of the launch and acceleration stage is 1746 kg (alas, I did not find the mass of "Granite" without fuel, therefore the calculation is also "at the muzzle"), the speed at the ground is 1,5M (1M = 340m / c in this case).
              We consider: ((7360-1746) * (340 * 1,5) ^ 2) / 2 = 728280000 J = 728280 kJ (mass, and therefore energy decreases, the stronger the further the target, if anyone has data discard, it is interesting to calculate exact value)
              Nevertheless, the energy is 1,64 times higher than that of the projectile of the strongest battleship !!! Suppose that with distance the energy decreases and the rocket approaches the target with the same kinetic energy as an artillery shell ... Che, it certainly won't penetrate, huh? winked

              And then 750kg in the combat unit comes into play and the target becomes sour.

              3- Breaking the side of "Stalingrad"

              And if those ammunition did not penetrate the armor barriers, equal in thickness to the caliber of the projectile, then why would the “soft-bodied” KSSh and “Kometa” suddenly learn to leave “a figure-eight hole with an area of ​​55 sq. meters ”?!

              Here you can also welcome an interesting example with cardboard, board and sledgehammer. We hit the cardboard with a sledgehammer - we get a neat hole. We hit the same sledgehammer on the board - the hole is much larger than in cardboard. So it was with the armor of the unfinished heavy cruiser "Stalingrad" - the shell broke down, tore a piece of armor, which is not surprising.

              Well, from me.
              4. What does "the strange story of the missile hitting the Admiral Nakhimov" mean?
              World conspiracy by developers / sailors? Maybe the Americans also forged a photo with the results of tests of Talos air defense systems on a 1968 destroyer target?
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 2 August 2015 20: 32
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                But the aircraft engine of the crashed (this is an important point) plane goes deep into the ground.


                No, they’re always lying on the surface, there’s a bunch of pictures, but I haven’t met any deep holes with an engine at the bottom)
                Quote: strannik1985
                Conclusion: FORGET ABOUT COMPARISON WITH AIRCRAFT ONCE AND FOREVER.


                Why? Both the rocket and the aircraft are built to move in the same environment, have similar engines according to the construction principle and are built from light materials.

                Quote: strannik1985
                How to know exactly the armor penetration of a rocket? Or a shell? Problematic. And if not exactly, but at least approximately? And this is possible by comparing kinetic energy.


                You are very wrong here, just google it and they will show you the necessary formulas for calculating armor penetration, there are a lot of them and they are much more complicated than the one you brought))
                Just think, for example, the armor-piercing shell of a B-37 gun (406mm) weighs 1108 kg and the half-piercing shell weighs 1108 kg, the charge is the same –320 kg, the kinetic energy is the same !! And the armor penetration is DIFFERENT !! Why is that? There is a whole science and one formula, and even such a primitive one, you can’t do here.

                Quote: strannik1985
                So it was with the armor of the unfinished heavy cruiser "Stalingrad" - the shell broke down, tore a piece of armor, which is not surprising.


                Here you need to understand that in the section of the TKR "Stalingrad" they were hollowing out everything that was possible before the test of the KSShch and the citadel was simply broken due to metal fatigue, loosening of armor plates, etc. As it turns out, there are no facts confirming the statement about a 55m2 breach, they are copied from each other, where it came from, no one knows, during subsequent tests, nothing of the same size was observed.
                The citadel of the TKR "Stalingrad" could not be drowned, as they were not tormented. I gave a link to the article above and I agree with the author's conclusion on KSSh and "Stalingrad"
                "In those days there was no Internet. Researchers wrote many things from memory, without being able to quickly check and refine the data. The general secrecy of the topic and, possibly, the desire to show the rocket as a kind of" superweapon "in accordance with the trend of that time. All this became the reason for the obvious falsifications "

                Quote: strannik1985
                What does "the strange story of the missile hitting" Admiral Nakhimov "mean?


                There was a link, an article analyzing the damage to the cruiser and described what is strange there.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 3 August 2015 00: 21
                  0
                  It is necessary to compare with the tallboy of the V-2 warhead (Mach 3,5-4) or the MiG-25 bombs that went 40 meters away.
                2. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 3 August 2015 08: 19
                  0
                  1.When it was our civilian airliner had a launch mass of 7 tons, a length of 10 m, a maximum diameter of 0,88 m, a wingspan of 2,6 m, a speed of 2,5-1,5 M, it was intended , including for an underwater launch and had a FPBCH (developed by NPO Altai, put into service in 1983, has an armored body and a fuse with a moderator)?

                  2. Naturally, the design of the projectile has an important role. Just consider the armor penetration using only the mass of warhead-distortion of Mr. Kaptsov.

                  3. And where does Kaptsov confirm that the side armor of the fuel dispenser has been significantly damaged by previous tests? This is Kaptsov himself withdrawing from his finger. What does it mean there is no confirmation? This is the only fact, the alternative data confirmed by the sources are unknown to me (except for the theoretical ones from Kaptsov that someone somewhere was catching someone’s hand and you do not need to believe a priori information on these facts).

                  4. If you argue not in the Kaptsov manner (first we take only warhead mass and speed, compare with a similar projectile and draw far-reaching conclusions), then nothing strange.
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 3 August 2015 14: 15
                    0
                    1. And why, for example, a civilian? The fighters of the first and second post-war generation were almost the same dimensions as Granite (MiG 21 F-13 take-off weight - 7 tons) and is quite comparable with what fell into the stronghold of TKR Stalingrad. The same Granite has a conventional turbojet engine, 2800 liters of fuel are splashing in the tanks, a warhead weighing 750 kg with the equivalent of 614 kg of TNT is only slightly thickened and does not have any characteristics for armor penetration of armored targets, only large mass and speed. Why not compare?
                    2. As I understand it from the RCC test reports, when meeting with a substantially armored target, the missile immediately breaks down (which is logical) into two parts - the engine and the warhead, apparently the author had this in mind. A warhead is being blown up (if the fuse is fully operational under such conditions) and only it can be counted.
                    3 It is enough to look at the history of the military service of the TKR citadel and it will be written that before it was used as a target for the KSSh, it was fired by artillerymen from other ships, launched torpedoes (apparently still inert form) and bombed aircraft. Well, about the alleged penetration of 55m2, the debate doesn’t calm down at all, you definitely can’t say it, but such a penetration was no longer observed and most likely if such an event took place (also no one really confirms, the fact and everything from where it was taken is not clear) then collapsed the power set of the body, apparently just could not stand the numerous hits on the exercises and once again simply collapsed. By the way, the armor was 180 mm and not 230-260.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 3 August 2015 19: 36
                      0
                      1. So Kaptsov. The Mig-21F-13-7 has 100 kg. The fighter is longer in length, wingspan, fuselage diameter, it has less speed at height and near the surface, it has no task to overcome the aquatic environment.
                      2.T.E. engine and fire from spilled fuel does not cause damage?
                      3. Who does not confirm? As far as I know, only about a hole of 55 sq.m. is known, do you have other information? There are no such penetrations, since they were no longer fired at armor of that thickness, but for example, when firing at a target depicting Orly Burke with an X-31A missile, the warhead hit a frame inside, it didn’t even scratch the paint itself (taken from the forum, I won’t tell for accuracy).
                      In 1961, KSSh opened the target ship as a can from aft to bow, a similar result?
          2. Roman 11
            Roman 11 2 August 2015 16: 06
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            and it’s not really necessary — for example, with folded antennas, the ship will not be able to use its own air defense systems, no, is there any point in such protection?

            In short, drones with AWACS are needed to start and hang both above the ship and fly for reconnaissance. What if antennas install on balloon and cling to the ship ?? ))))))))
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 2 August 2015 18: 45
              +1
              UAVs still need to be developed, in any case, will it be inferior to a normal aircraft-AWACS — does it make sense to invest in an initially worse project?
              And that on a balloon they will be less vulnerable?
              1. Roman 11
                Roman 11 2 August 2015 19: 48
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                UAVs still need to be developed

                Of course, although you can borrow from partners, just don’t talk about sanctions, there are adults))
                Quote: strannik1985
                And that on a balloon they will be less vulnerable?

                The thought popped up on the go)) But to the vantage point, something changes. For example, the viewing range. No? Not a specialist in radar, but it seems that earlier detection can increase the success of the same Redoubt with an interception range of up to 150 km. In general, anti-ship missiles on a flying locator sound menacing)
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 3 August 2015 08: 25
                  0
                  1. Existing UAV reconnaissance vehicles, what UAVs should be sized to insert a radar antenna, equipment for viewing at least 150-200 km into it? What size should be the landing pad, the hangar for all this? Again we will be a cruiser-pre-naval carrier cruise?

                  2. And what is the point, if it is x .. knows when and anyway it will be inferior in terms of characteristics and flexibility of use to a carrier-based AWACS?
                  1. Roman 11
                    Roman 11 3 August 2015 13: 14
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    And the point is, if it is x .. knows when and anyway it will be inferior in characteristics and flexibility to the use of a carrier-based AWACS

                    A necessary and useful thing - even more so in the conditions of war, because it goes on continuously, and here is a drone, technical readiness for flight is important. In addition, pilots in war conditions are always in short supply, the same expensive training programs, and in military conditions even more difficult. UAVs can replace them in minor areas - in the form of insurance, clarification of the situation, a constant review. Here is the presence of the airborne radar on the drone: Modernization of the UAV "Outpost" (poster on the forum "Army-2015")
                    In the near future, it is planned to create specialized options based on the Outpost. In particular, information is provided about the complex with Forpost-R UAV equipped with equipment for relaying signals from other Forpost and Orlan UAVs, as well as from Azart portable radio stations or RTR equipment with reconnaissance depths of up to 250 km in the range of 1 ... 18 GHz. It is planned to implement interaction with air traffic control devices (AZN-V equipment of NITA firm).

                    In the future, a deep modernization with the possibility of equipping the UAV with universal payload compartments - the fuselage (for equipment weighing up to 35 kg) and external suspensions (up to 14 kg) is considered at the UZGA. It is planned to include in the expanded set of intelligence tools, in particular, side radar and a digital aerial photography system (CAFS). In addition, a laser rangefinder-target designator (LDC) can be installed as a payload. Apparently, “import substitution” will ultimately affect almost all Forpost systems, including the replacement of ground-based diagnostic and maintenance tools with domestic ones.

                    The estimated characteristics of the upgraded UAVs are not reported. In the basic version of the Outpost UAV, it has a maximum take-off weight of 456 kg and is capable of carrying a payload of 45 kg. The maximum flight altitude is 6200 m, the maximum flight speed at sea level is 216 km / h, the flight duration is 12 ... 16 hours, and the range is up to 250 km. Full-scale UAVs of the Forpost type were not shown during the forum.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 3 August 2015 14: 16
                      0
                      1. While these are only promises, initially the function is purely auxiliary, and there is no talk of a ship version yet.
                      2. This is a reconnaissance vehicle, but not an AWACS.
                      1. Roman 11
                        Roman 11 3 August 2015 15: 16
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        2. This is a reconnaissance vehicle, but not an AWACS.

                        And here is the wiki. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Reports: Prospects
                        In the future, or perhaps even within the framework of GPV-2020, the creation of UAVs with long duration and high flight speed, allowing you to constantly keep an eye on a line with a length of up to a thousand kilometers or more. This machine weighing more than 8 tons is capable of being in the patrol area for 24 hours (and in the future - more) at a twenty-kilometer height. The possibility of refueling in the air is also being considered. The propulsion system used is the RD-1700 turbojet engine (being created by the State Unitary Enterprise “Plant named after V. Ya. Klimov” for equipping MiG-AT and Yak-130 aircraft) (2005). Cruising speed - 400 km / h, maximum - 500 km / h (2005). Multispectral monitoring of airspace, land and water surface is provided in real time in an area with a diameter of at least 1000 km. The on-board multispectral sounding system includes a synthetic-aperture side-view radar, an optical-electronic sounding complex, and an optical complex
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 3 August 2015 19: 58
                        0
                        1. The good of the promise.
                        2. To base such a bandura (as I understand it, again, is it only a land option?) You will need a full-fledged aircraft carrier, to protect the AWACS and the connection as a whole, you need fighter jets like usual with EW containers (for which, again, you need an aircraft carrier) Well and what for to fence a garden?
        2. Roman 11
          Roman 11 2 August 2015 15: 51
          0
          Quote: barbiturate
          armor penetration is not a Granite chip and the undermining of 750kg of a high-explosive warhead will occur at the side, so what will happen? Surely it will loosen the armored plates, perhaps a leak will open, there may be a local break in the armored corps, is that all?

          At high speed, even if the detonation itself is near the side, the striking elements according to the guided blast scheme will break through the main belt and will mainly fall on the next layer of bulkheads ... Several Granites will not sink such a battleship of course. But from 8-9 units. already sad. Yamato how many torpedoes survived? Nobody knows, but more than 10 were fatal, and in fact they were aviation, American.
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 2 August 2015 16: 26
            +1
            Quote: Novel 11
            At high speed, even if the detonation itself is near the side, the damaging elements in the guided blast wave pattern will break through the main belt and will mainly fall on the next layer of bulkheads


            Yes, you are kidding)) if the thin-walled missile itself is smeared about the main armored belt, then what are the striking elements there? Where?)
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Roman 11
              Roman 11 2 August 2015 17: 17
              0
              Quote: barbiturate
              yes you are kidding))

              Yes, it drove off. ) Then cumulative?
  42. sergevl
    sergevl 1 August 2015 17: 49
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    You understand the difference — a relatively narrow belt, towers, barbetas of towers. Now the ship has a lot of places that you can’t book well, the same radar antennas, communication systems, UVP covers, etc.
    ------------------------
    And what will be the use of over-protection of a battleship if radars are delivered by PRR?
    Naturally higher, but why is such a large and expensive ship?
    ------

    That's it - all that you can’t reserve is overboard. ))) In the sense, it is taken out to the satellite \ UAV \ airplane - we get external target designation.

    Barbets and rotating towers are archaic, and for a long range you need a gun with a long barrel length - 100-150 kb. It will shoot directly from the hold, where the shells lie, through the decks, at an angle of 45 degrees, upward.

    in principle, no radiation sources - targets for PRR are needed.

    just think, a tower with barbets weighs 3000 tons. 3 towers - 9000 tons. At the same time, the roof of the tower is made of thin armor .... the tower is cold .... la-la-la))))
  43. Taoist
    Taoist 1 August 2015 22: 19
    -1
    Oh, and what I found ... belay

    http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/747-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0


    %BE%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83/

    It turns out that in some cases, our Oleg still erupts common sense ...

    "What conclusions can be drawn from all these stories? To say that heavy armor does not protect the ship at all would be blatant hypocrisy. Most often it does. But only what is directly under the armor.
    All armament, radio electronics, equipment and systems located on the upper deck, in the event of an attack by conventional bombs or widespread RCC "Harpoon", "Exochet", the Chinese C-802 turn into burning debris - the battleship will almost lose its combat capability.
    "Author Oleg Kaptsov (C)
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 2 August 2015 11: 04
      -2
      Oh ... and minus for what? It's not me who wrote this ... but judging by the signature, just our Oleg ... Or is it someone who decided to discredit an honest fan of "armor and couple" and signed his name? Then call me ... I didn't know. wink
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 2 August 2015 16: 47
        0
        Quote: Taoist
        honest fan of "Brony and Steam"

        It sounds like it’s from the past, but hydrocarbons and gas are not eternal, but the armor still protects ...... Time will tell.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 2 August 2015 20: 58
        0
        ABOUT! It looks like "Jupiter is angry ..." (c) Why would it be? bully
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 3 August 2015 00: 25
          0
          This will never end. Now, uranium steamers will be whipped up. crying Steampunk, so steampunk ... laughing
  44. sergevl
    sergevl 2 August 2015 09: 05
    +1
    During the Okinawa campaign, the English carrier formation,
    consisting of 4 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 4 light cruisers and 11
    destroyers, took a position south of Okinawa to
    provide support
    ---------------------
    This English compound was valid from March 26 to April 20
    and then from May 3 to May 25.
    --------------
    Although all British aircraft carriers were attacked
    kamikaze planes, none of them was disabled due to their
    armored flight decks.
    Sherman F.K. - American aircraft carriers in the Pacific. Okinawa and Navy

    4.05.1945/11/31 at 60-XNUMX the aircraft carrier "Indomiteble", operating as part of the English squadron off the coast of Okinawa, was struck by the sudden emergence of the Zero from the clouds. Despite fierce anti-aircraft fire, the plane crashed onto the flight deck next to the superstructure. The deck withstood the blow. It left only a dent XNUMX centimeters deep
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 2 August 2015 09: 35
      0
      The Todo essays were lightly armored. It was a fire, and nothing flew.
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 2 August 2015 16: 54
      0
      Quote: sergevl
      all British aircraft carriers were attacked
      kamikaze planes, none of them was disabled due to their
      armored flight decks.

      Well, but how to protect vulnerable nodes - automation, bius, hardware, computers?
      1. sergevl
        sergevl 2 August 2015 23: 00
        0
        Quote: Novel 11
        Well, but how to protect vulnerable nodes - automation, bius, hardware, computers?


        1. Hide under the armored decks \ in the citadel
        2. Install on spring suspensions.
        3. Transfer to the aircraft AWACS \ destroyer \ PL
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 3 August 2015 00: 27
          0
          And to make a DRO plane like that.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato
          By the way, where is the one that is flightless?
        2. Roman 11
          Roman 11 3 August 2015 07: 42
          0
          Quote: sergevl
          Quote: Novel 11
          Well, but how to protect vulnerable nodes - automation, bius, hardware, computers?


          1. Hide under the armored decks \ in the citadel
          2. Install on spring suspensions.
          3. Transfer to the aircraft AWACS \ destroyer \ PL

          Springs, uh, of course soften, you can additionally cram with earthquake-resistant material. But you must admit, all these technologies, and you can think of a lot of other new products, affect the price. Of course, it is possible to make an armored platform and its corresponding protective elements, but research, testing, manufacturing, and then operation themselves consume money like a fleet ........ and at whose expense this banquet ?? Therefore, technology takes small steps closer to this - to the crushing of ships into individual elements. IMHO sees such a further direction. I doubt that all in one is the ship of the future. I believe that the eye-ear systems and the brain of the ship can and should be done separately in the near future, considering a variety of options for this, including exotic ones. Offhand, to deploy the antenna mast device (sinks) from helium balloons capable of lifting antenna arrays from light materials over large areas, something like minefields)) In general, fantasies will not hurt. And hide armored platforms under radar-absorbing material.
  45. xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 August 2015 15: 50
    +1
    Just an article in the subject - to the question of the reincarnation of the "admiral" RK 1144 "Orlan". On their backbone, it is quite possible, both in terms of means and technology, to create self-sufficient attack missile and artillery platforms. They will close (at least partially lol ) on transitional 15-20 years gaps of large NK in the Russian Navy.
  46. sergevl
    sergevl 2 August 2015 22: 50
    0
    http://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-formidable-may-9-kamikaze/

    Here, with pictures, in school English, a kamikaze with a bomb falling on the deck of Formidable is described.

    http://cv6.org/ship/damage/kyushu_2.htm
    It shows how a bomb from a kamikaze pierced three decks of an enterprise. And destruction.

    http://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-formidable-may-4-kamikaze/

    There are pictures here, the place where the bomb hit the armored flight deck.
  47. g1961.61
    g1961.61 21 October 2017 23: 23
    0
    I advise the author to read "The Pacific War, aircraft carriers in battle," by American Admiral Sherman, one of the commanders of the US Navy during the war. As the Japanese drowned two battleships of Britain, of which the "Prince of Wales" is the latest, with powerful anti-aircraft defense. And without air cover, the Americans did not risk fighting. Sherman is one of those who determined what the US Navy should be like after the war.
  48. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 6 February 2018 02: 56
    0
    Holivar about the effectiveness of battleships is very reminiscent of the discussion of the effectiveness of flambergs :) Emotions and sincerity over the edge!