Military Review

Battle damage ships

236

We can only know the probability.
Only a case is a complete master.
Of all the scenarios possible
He presents us alone.

“The Legend of the Failing to Come”

The era of capital ships came to an end with the advent of aviation and “plywood shelves”.

In the evening of May 26, 1941 of the fifteen torpedo bombers from the Arc Royal made a second attack on Bismarck, having achieved two (according to other sources - three) hits. One of them had decisive consequences. Trying to evade the torpedo, the Bismarck turned left, and the torpedo instead of the armor belt on the starboard side hit the stern, damaging the steering gear and jamming the steering wheels in the extreme position. The battleship turned into a sedentary target and was easily finished off by the English ships.

During the fight, Rodney released 380 406-mm and 716 152-mm shells, King George V - 339 356-mm and 660 133-mm, heavy cruisers "Dorsetshir" and "Norfolk" - 254 and 527 203, respectively mm shells. Torpedo consumption consisted of: “Rodney” - 2 (one hit), “Dorsetshir” - 3 (two hits).


And “Bismarck” settled under the water of the Mont Blanc of melted steel ...

If a “plywood shelf” drowns a floating fortress with one click, then why do we need a fleet? It is enough to have a squadron of "shelves".

The harsh truth was that the “shelf” did not always stoke the battleships. Moreover, she often could not catch up with them!

In March 1942, two Albacor squadrons (817 and 832 squadron) from the Victories aircraft carrier attempted to attack a single Tirpitz. The attack was made on the aft corners, as the least dangerous from the point of view of anti-aircraft fire, as a result, the speed of convergence of the “shelves” with the battleship was only 30 nodes - less than the torpedo boats! Under the heavy anti-aircraft fire, the British could not attack such a high-speed maneuvering ship. All 24 fired torpedoes missed the target. Two Albacores were shot down by return fire, and the planes returning from the mission had dead and wounded. The battle is over. “Tirpitz”, going on 29 nodes against the wind, dissolved in fog and snow charges.

It must be admitted, “whatnot” great luck. The air defense system of the German battleships was organized as if it was done not by Aryans, but by Untersmen. Two land commandoherats that operated anti-aircraft fire on the aft corners without any stabilization and anti-shatter booking. As a result, the Nazis paid for their greed to the fullest.

Be in place of the Bismarck American battleship (where every Bofors had his own gyro-stabilized guidance post with an analog computer, and five-inch anti-aircraft shells were equipped with built-in mini-radar) ... Comments are superfluous.

Torpedo jammed steering wheels - a rare coincidence. Here are just a few examples of damage to battleships without any fatal consequences:

“Vittorio Veneto” (March 1941). Hitting a torpedo in the area of ​​the right propeller screw, complicated by a series of close gaps bombs. The battleship took 3500 tons of water. Two hours later, emergency parties localized the flow of water, was given a small move. An hour later, managed to bring the move to 16 bonds. The battleship returned to the base independently, the repair took 4 a month.

Torpedoing “Littorio” (June 1942). 1600 tons of water + 350 tons of counter-flooding for leveling roll and trim. Returned to the base under its own power. After a month 1,5 returned to service.

Re-torpedoing “Vittorio Veneto” (December 1941). Hit 533 mm torpedoes from the submarine "Urge" in the area of ​​the aft tower GK. Adopted 2032 tons of water. The battleship returned to the base on its own, repairing the 4 of the month.

Torpedoing “North Caroline” (August 1942). The Yankees described the events of that day in detail. They claim that they did not like it at all. The course fell to the 18 nodes, the 5 of the sailors died, the cellars of the main turrets were flooded, three armor plates were damaged, 528 tons of oil (8%) spilled into the ocean. It is worth noting that the combat part of the torpedo of the Japanese submarine (400 kg) was twice as powerful as the aviation torpedoes of the “shelves”.

Emergency batches straightened roll in 6 minutes. The battleship went to the atoll of Tongatabu (somewhere on the edge of the world), where a two-day ersatz repair took place. From there it moved across the ocean in the direction of Pearl Harbor, the main repair took 2 a month.

Battle damage ships

Battleship "Maryland", damaged by a torpedo at Saipan

Next - torpedoing “Yamato” Submarine Skate (December 1943). 3000 tons of water were received, the artillery cellar of the GK aft tower was flooded. The battleship returned across the ocean to Japan under its own power. Renovated: January – March 1944.

Here is such an interesting statistic.

Of course, someone with undisguised malevolence will remember “Barham” and “Royal Oak”, as well as the quick death of LC “Prince of Wells”. Well, all skeptics should read history these ships, paying particular attention to the dates of their bookmarks. The first two are the dreadnoughts of the First World War. They were built in an era when the threat from under the water was considered negligible, and nobody even thought about PTZ.

“Prince of Wales” (like all King George V-type LCs) - Royal’s interim fleet. Discounted economy class battleships, objectively considered the worst among all capital ships of the late period. They had many shortcomings, one of which was a weak PTZ. On average, the width of their anti-torpedo protection was 2 meters less than that of the German Bismarck.

And, of course, fatal accident. One of the six hits had to the propeller shaft on the left side. Continuing to rotate, the deformed shaft “turned” the entire underwater part of the hull, which led to fatal consequences.

An inconsistent example is the sinking of the Shinano supercarrier (LC of the Yamato type with a rebuilt upper deck). The ship was killed, demonstrating amazing vitality. He, as if nothing had happened, seven hours went under its own power, having received four torpedoes, and all in one side! Then he stopped and sank. Why did the Shinano sink? Because it was not completed, and its watertight bulkheads were not sealed. The rapid death of a lot contributed to the actions of the Shinano team. However, there is nothing to blame the sailors for. They stepped on the deck of a secret aircraft carrier just a couple of days before going to sea, and they didn’t even know the plan for the compartments!

Amazing unsinkability and military resistance demonstrated “Yamato” and “Musashi”. According to the chronicle of their last battles, the testimony of American pilots and surviving crew members, the battleships withstood six torpedo hits, maintaining the course, power supply and partial combat capability. The exact limit of their durability has not been established: in “Musashi” it hit the 20 torpedoes In “Yamato” - 11, not counting the numerous breaks of aerial bombs.


She drowned


Statistics show the following.

Single torpedo hits could not pose a mortal threat to the cruisers and battleships of the Second World War. There have been cases of the return of ships with a fractured board and a completely severed nasal tip (“New Orleans”). As for the fatal coincidences and damaged steering - the likelihood of such an event was an order of magnitude lower than is commonly believed by modern fans of military history.


The cruiser "New Orleans" is not going to give up


Chapter number two. Bombs

Experienced experts know the real state of affairs. As they enter the discussion, they meaningfully say: “Ninth September 1943 of the year”.

On that day, German bombers put an end to the eternal confrontation of projectile and armor. Seemed unsinkable, the newest Italian LC “Roma” was destroyed with the help of guided bombs.

The first Fritz-X hit the deck of the forecastle between 100 and 108 frames, passed through the compartments of the constructive underwater protection and exploded in the water under the ship's hull. The explosion led to a huge destruction of the underwater part of the battleship, and sea water began to flow there. In a matter of minutes, she flooded the aft engine room, the third power station, the seventh and eighth boiler rooms. Damage to the cables caused numerous short circuits and electrical fires in the stern. The ship left the formation of the compound, sharply slowing down.

In 16: 02, the second Fritz finished off the battleship: a bomb hit him on the forecastle deck on the starboard side between the 123 and 136 frames, went through all the decks and exploded in the nose compartment. The fire started, which led to the detonation of the bow group of artillery cellars.




At this story “Roma” is over.

And another story began.

Simultaneously with the “Roma” two guided bombs hit the same type LC “Littorio”. The first blow fell on the forecastle deck in the 162 area of ​​the frame. The bomb pierced the ship and stepped through the side, detonating in the water. 190 apt. Has been damaged. meters plating in the underwater part of the hull. Water intake amounted to 830 tons (another 400 was taken to align roll and trim). The next bomb hit the water near the battleship, causing a partial depressurization of the skin on the port side.

“Littorio” came under its own power to Malta, from where he went to the Suez Canal area, where he was interned (18.09.1943).



The Germans fiddled in earnest. In the same month, the British “Worspite” came under attack from the guided bombs. A veteran of both world wars clearly did not expect such a gift of fate. The bomb broke through the battleship through a 6-meter hole in its bottom, through which 5000 tons of seawater flowed in. The close break of another Fritz damaged the anti-torpedo protection of the battleship, the third bomb exploded at a distance, without causing Worspite harm. Despite heavy damage, the losses among the crew of the “Worspite” were small: a total of 9 dead and 14 injured.

The lost battleship was evacuated to Malta, from where he was transferred to England. Six months later, “Worspayt” was returned to combat capability. 6 June 1944, the ship first opened fire on the German fortifications in Normandy.

The conclusion is obvious: even the use of guided bombs did not guarantee victory in a naval battle. Why managed? This made it possible to drop bombs from enormous heights (up to 6000 m), so that their speed at the time of the meeting with the goal reached the speed of sound. Special-purpose super-ammunition (an array of hardened steel) weight 1380 kg. Not every bomber could lift and sift “Fritz-X” sightingly!

И что же?

The larger and more modern “Littorio” got off with moderate damage, without loss of progress and combat worthiness. The honored old man “Worspite” suffered more, but even he stayed afloat, and his crew did not suffer any noticeable losses.

In unison, the story of the damage to “Vittorio Veneto” will sound.

5 June 1943, during the strongest bombardment of Spice, two 908-kg armor-piercing bombs dropped by the American B-24 got into the moored battleship. The first blow fell in the area of ​​the first 381-mm tower (159-th frame). The bomb broke through all the decks, the cylinders of the underwater protection and, without exploding, went to the bottom. The second hit had serious consequences: the strike fell on the left side near the spiers, in the 197 area of ​​the frame. The bomb went through all the ship structures and exploded under the bottom.

Vittorio Veneto immediately exploded and sank.

Hell no! “Vittorio Veneto” went under its own power to Genoa. Repair took one month.

Based on the above facts, strict statistics are born:

As a result of four attacks and nine dropped bombs (seven “Fritz” and a pair of 2000 armored-piercing guns), only one battleship ("Roma").

And this is the result of the impact of mighty ammunition dropped from great heights and intended directly to combat highly protected objects!

Critical damage was achieved only in the case of a direct hit to the cellar area of ​​the ammunition (the most dangerous part of the combat ship). However, in practice, the probability of hitting the “Fritz” in the battleship did not exceed 0,5. For unguided bombs, this value was two orders of magnitude lower: high-altitude bombing of moving ships was a waste of ammunition.

What can we say about the usual "mines" and attempts to bomb the battleships from low altitudes! Highly secure ships of the WWII era sneezed on such threats.

In April, 1944, during the raid of British aircraft carriers to Kaa-fjord, nine bombs fell into the battleship Tirpitz. The British used the entire spectrum of aviation weapons: 500-pound “mines”, semi-armor bombs, powerful 726-kg “penetrators” and even 600-fnl. depth charges.



Bombardment did not add beauty, but the battleship was not going to sink, did not explode, did not burn, and even retained some of the combat capability. None of the bombs could not penetrate the main armored decks. The main problems were caused not so much by the bombs as by the old wounds opened by shaking - the consequences of the previous mini-submarine attack. The servants of anti-aircraft guns, who were on the upper deck, were badly hit by shards.

The next 42 raid “Barracudas”, accompanied by 40 fighters (Operation Talisman), ended without result. Aces of the Royal Air Force achieved 0% of hits in a fixed battleship. With the same result, the August raid of four aircraft carriers to the Tirpitz site (Operation Goodwood) ended.

Surely someone will ask the obvious question: if the battleship is weakly vulnerable to strikes on the surface of the hull, why did the British not use torpedoes?

Because the Germans, unlike the “macaroni” (Taranto) and American yachtsmen and golf lovers (Pearl Harbor), did not forget to install an anti-torpedo network.

Since it sounded about Pearl Harbor, you can remember the old “Arizona”. 1915 rusty bucket built, with horizontal protection according to Perov world standards (main armored 76 mm). The unfortunate ship was hit by an 800-kilogram bomb, converted from an 356-mm armor-piercing projectile.

From the same series the story of the Soviet “Marat”. In the context of the current conversation, this example does not make sense.

Late battleships were not “absolute weapons". Moreover, in a certain period (before the appearance of anti-aircraft missiles), the probability of their death from the impact of high-tech aircraft munitions increased. But it was just PROBABILITY. All the legends about the "Fritz" and "plywood shelves", allegedly changed the balance of power at sea and devalued the capital ships - the slogans of the "sofa experts" who are too lazy to open the book and get acquainted with the statistics of combat damage of WWII ships.

In fact, even the use of the most powerful super ammunition did not guarantee victory over floating fortresses. Moreover, probability theory has always been on the side of the battleships. Given their considerable size and continuous evolution, the chance of their survival in battle has continuously increased. A brilliant example is the British LC “Vanguard” (1940-46), which absorbed the experience of both world wars. To get is not to punch. And if you break through - not the fact that you disable. 3000 tons of splinterproof bulkheads. Eight electric generators dispersed in isolated compartments along the entire length of the ship. The alternation of boiler and turbine units in a “checkerboard pattern”. Spread the lines of the propeller shafts on 15 meters. Developed a system of pumping and counter-flooding, six independent posts of the struggle for survivability. Remote control of steam line valves - Vanguard turbines could work in fully flooded compartments! And all this splendor was reinforced by the highest possible structural protection with the 350-mm belt and the 150-mm citadel deck.

You torment such a stoke.


Launch of "Vanguard" on the water
Author:
236 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. blizart
    blizart 3 August 2015 06: 34
    +12
    The Scharnhorst's car was too big, and as a result, a vertical escarp appeared on one of the armored decks. One 354 mm "suitcase" from "Duke of York" ricocheted off the deck and crashed into a vertical wall, and a car behind it! The Scharnhorst lost its speed and was finished off ... by the destroyers. Battleships are amazing, but no weapon is perfect.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 10: 14
      +1
      Quote: blizart
      Battleships are amazing, but not one weapon is imperfect.

      Late battle battleships were not an “absolute weapon”. Moreover, in a certain period (before the appearance of anti-aircraft missiles), the likelihood of their death from the effects of high-tech aviation ammunition increased. But it was just PROBABILITY. All the legends about the “Fritz” and “plywood shelves” that supposedly changed the balance of power at sea and depreciated the capital ships are the slogans of “couch experts” who are too lazy to open a book and get acquainted with the statistics of combat damage to WWII ships.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 3 August 2015 15: 17
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        slogans of “couch experts” who are too lazy to open a book and get acquainted with the statistics of combat damage to WWII ships.

        Not so lazy.
        "Prince of Wales" (3.03.41) + 10.12.41 at the bank. Malaya (South China Sea) sunk by the Japanese. aviation (bombs, and torp. G4M1, G3M2 ground-based; hits 5-6 AT and 1 AB). Losses: 1 admiral, 26 office, 486 matr. "Prince of Wales" After two months of repair, transferred to the Far East and 10.12.1941 sunk by Japanese aircraft near Singapore (5 torpedo hits). "King George V" 1.5.1942 rammed and sunk its "Punjabi" EM in the fog, received significant damage and went out of action for almost 3 months. In early December 1939, "Nelson" was blown up by a magnetic mine and out of action on 9 months. 27.9.1941/1942/18.6.1944 damaged Italian. air torpedo and was repaired until April 1945. During the support of the Allied landing in Normandy on 1915/1936/25.11.41, it was blown up by a mine and out of order until January 331, "Barham" (4, modern. 56) + 658/134/860 north. Es-Salluma torpedoed by germ. Submarine "U-12.12.1939" (hit by 28.12.1939 torpedoes), exploded and sank. Losses: 30 office., 3 mater., 25.11.1941 n. infantry, (according to other data -331 people.) "Barham" 1941 accidentally rammed and sank the English. EM "Duchess", itself 20.3.1941 received a torpedo with germ. Submarine U-106 and was out of order for 22.5.1941 months. Died on 23.6.1941/19.12.1941/1941 in the Mediterranean Sea from three torpedoes with germ. Submarine U-1942. For the rest of the ships in 1943 was also unsuccessful, all of them received damage of varying severity: "Malaya" - 16.9.1943/1400/13.6.1944 from a torpedo germ. Submarine U-8.8.1944, "Warspite" - 28/1915/14.10.39 and 47/2/1 from German bombs, aviation, "Queen Elizabeth" and "Valiant" - 3/24/809 from mines laid by Ital. combat swimmers. They returned to service at the end of 14.10.1939 (Malaya), early 47 (Warspite and 'Valiant "). The most severely damaged Queen Elizabeth was repaired only at the beginning of 24.7.1940. Warspite was badly damaged during the landing at Salerno on 1942 September 1943 by the Germans planning the FXXNUMX bomb. After repairs, it was almost immediately put out of action again, being blown up by a mine on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. "Valiant" was damaged on XNUMX during the accident of the floating dock AFD-XNUMX, after which it was under repair until the end of the war. "Royal Oak" (XNUMX) + XNUMX in Scapa Flow a German torpedo was torpedoed. Submarine "U-XNUMX" (made XNUMX attacks; hits XNUMX and XNUMX torpedoes, respectively), rolled over and sank. Losses: XNUMX Offices, XNUMX Maters Royal Oak was the first battleship to be killed in World War II. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX he was sunk in Scapa Flow by three German torpedoes. Submarine U-XNUMX. "Resolution" XNUMX during the operation against Dakar received a torpedo hit from the French. Submarine "Bevezie" and was heavily damaged. Out of order for more than a year. "Ramillies" in May XNUMX was damaged by a torpedo from a Japanese ultra-small submarine near Madagascar and went out of action until June XNUMX.

        The little "Yelow Sun Marine" put the huge battleship out of action for more than a year.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 3 August 2015 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        All the legends about the “Fritz” and “plywood shelves” that supposedly changed the balance of power at sea and depreciated the capital ships are the slogans of “couch experts” who are too lazy to open a book and get acquainted with the statistics of combat damage to WWII ships.

        Oleg, you write interesting things, of course, and no one will argue that one or two torpedoes do not sink battleships, moreover, the cases of sinking can be attributed to "bad luck." Only exploded and sunk ships are not any easier from this. Arizona is still under water ...
        Yes, and in Barham got three pieces (as you know, boats shoot by no means one torpedo)
        The "Etazherok" raid on Taranto put the Italian fleet out of action for several months, which is a lot in a war.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 August 2015 06: 45
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          .Only exploding and sunken ships from this is not easier

          It is much easier for ships who returned to base on their own.
          and most of these
          Quote: Pilat2009
          Arizona is still under water.

          and that would not be there
          1915 dreadnought of the year, with 76 mm armored deck
          stood at the base, more like a yacht club

          yes, 3 sank in Pearl Harbor of eight LCs (+ Nevada ran aground)
          the rest of 4 were not injured
          Quote: Pilat2009
          The raid on Taranto "Etazherok" disabled the Italian fleet for several months,

          pasta
          why follow them

          Look out for the Altenfjord!
  2. D-Master
    D-Master 3 August 2015 06: 42
    +8
    Time shows that the battleships were still not quite correctly evaluated, and their combat potential was not fully appreciated. Incredible conclusions were made after testing nuclear weapons on outdated battleships. For some reason they absolutely did not want to sink wassat !!!

    American battleship Arkansas (built in 1912;
    displacement 26100 m), located at 400 m from the epicenter, almost bla-
    safely suffered an air explosion and only after an underwater overturn
    crashed and sank. The American battleship "Nevada" (1916, 22400 tons)
    put in 600 m port side to the place of the explosion. 1 July he has a shock
    wave pushed and deformed the skin in the stern, damaged
    massive superstructure, demolished chimney, roll to the left appeared
    board. Before July 25, Nevada was deployed on its starboard side - after the explosion
    the roll disappeared, the water flooded the starboard compartments, and the ship itself
    I’ve gotten straight! He remained afloat - a year later he was drowned by
    Hawaii conventional airborne.
    The former Japanese battleship "Nagato" (1920, 32720 tons) was located on
    further, in 900 m from the epicenter. After an air explosion, he wasn’t injured,
    except that paint peeled off in some places from light radiation. After
    water damage was more serious - roll appeared in 2, by the end of the day
    increased to 6, however, the ship rolled over and sank only through
    more than four days.


    In the picture, Nagato after a nuclear explosion.
    1. EGOrkka
      EGOrkka 3 August 2015 07: 03
      +9
      ..... the iron is floating, and people are stuffing?
      1. Santa Fe
        3 August 2015 10: 12
        -1
        Quote: EGOrkka
        and people in mincemeat?

        still 400 meters from the epicenter, almost a direct hit

        Stay a little further away - everyone who was at the posts inside the citadel would remain ALIVE

        And don't talk about radiation - here's a real photo of the cruiser Pensacola, 8 days after the explosion on Bikini (Able) distance to the epicenter 800 meters. Clothing safety measures attest to radiation safety measures taken
        1. Avenich
          Avenich 3 August 2015 11: 19
          +7
          Oleg, usually, during this kind of tests, all animals are placed in the target, not in front of the children it will be said, usually pigs. "... would have stayed ALIVE ...", and maybe not. The second, of course, on the Kaptsov scale of 400 meters to the epicenter is "... almost a direct hit ...", but what about the pressure decrease in inverse proportion to the square of the distance (I don't put quotes, not an exact quote, but from your own opuses). Third, where are the guys with dosimeters and data on radioactive contamination. I also have a photo where the soldiers are throwing the BSL into the mouth of the Chernobyl reactor. There is also a photo of Soviet officers walking through the destroyed Nagasaki. Well, and such a small detail, the power of the explosion, please read it out, and how it was measured, this power.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 August 2015 14: 10
          +6
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          And no need to talk about radiation - here is a real photo of the cruiser Pensacola, 8 days after the explosion at Bikini (Able) the distance to the epicenter is 800 meters. The radiation safety measures taken are evidenced by the clothes of those present

          Do you seriously judge the level of radiation by clothing? This is the end of the 40s, what kind of security measures are there?
          Here is a photograph of the decontamination of the Prince Eugen, a ship that was written off as too radioactive as a result of this decontamination (and sank due to the impossibility of repair for the same reason):

          Let me remind you that in a few years, American troops will march alongside the epicenter of a nuclear explosion and manually deactivate equipment from the landfills.
        3. opus
          opus 3 August 2015 16: 10
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          still 400 meters from the epicenter, almost a direct hit

          1. There was a miss on 650 (even an investigation was conducted against the pilots of the B-29)
          the explosion occurred near Gilliam (Transport) - sank, as did Sakawa (Japanese cruiser) and others
          2. The goal was not Pensacola, but the battleship Nevada.
          the battleship, like Pensacola, received severe damage.

          3. Orientation !!! To the epicenter radially. Very important.
          Stern, nose - "survived" (Japanese battleship Nagato)
          Onboard (destroyer Lamson) -the farthest sank.
          Everyone who was closer Saratoga received a minimum overpressure 5 psi (≈34,5 kPa), the battleship is not a submarine. Save your ears

          4. 21 or 23 CT !!!!

          P-700 "Granite" .... possible installation of nuclear power about 500 kilotons

          5. Able’s explosion was atmospheric !!! 158 m. Around the sea of ​​oksiyan (except atoll).
          Air density - the higher, the less.
          External materials and environment - DO NOT FORM a "fireball"

          The question is where the shock wave will "go"?

          6. From the same wiki:
          Fifty-seven guinea pigs, 109 mice, 146 pigs, 176 goats and 3030 white rats were placed on 22 target ships in places where people are usually located. 10% of the animals were killed by the explosion, 15% - from a flash of radiation, 10% died subsequently. A total of 35% of the animals died directly from the explosion or radiation


          Theoretically all unprotected places on the ship got xnumx xnumx rem neutron radiation in an explosion. As a result, people inside the ship and receiving an 10 times lower dose of radiation would still receive a lethal dose of 1000 rem.

          From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “... a large ship, a mile from the explosion, can avoid floodingbut his crew will be killed by a deadly flash of radiation from a bomb, and only a ghost ship will remainfloating by the waves in ocean watersBulletin Editors 1946, S. 1.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          On radiation safety measures taken

          Observers during Operation Hardtack I - people of that time are naive (or stupid)

          Representatives of NATO observe the explosion during Operation Boltzmann
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 3 August 2015 18: 39
            0
            Years through the 10 RCC Granite will be withdrawn from service.
            1. opus
              opus 3 August 2015 20: 43
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              Years through the 10 RCC Granite will be withdrawn from service.

              What does it change?
              1. Brahmos is able to carry the bullseye

              A lightweight option can drag flying platforms
              2.3M-54E1 does not seem to be advertised, but the weight of the warhead in 450kg says that it can
              3. I really hope for years 10 on the database there will be a Iskander-MF thread modified for battleship and aircraft carrier tasks, with a new GOS (capable of hitting moving targets, and the point of the terrain where the target was), with a detachable solid propellant rocket engine (or 2x speed, Schaub reach range in 700-1000km
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 3 August 2015 23: 49
                +1
                Bramos does not have such a long flight range as Granite, and the aircraft will have to enter the air defense zone where it will be 100% shot down.
                1. opus
                  opus 4 August 2015 01: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  Bramos does not have such a long range as Granite

                  1. You will be surprised - along a low-altitude trajectory The range is practically the same.
                  Given that it weighs more than 2 times less, the EPR is 5 times less, and the phonite in the infrared range is probably an order of magnitude less; it has more chances to get it
                  2. Well, about 100% - I would argue.
                  300km launch range
                  SM-2 Extended Range- will not reach (240)
                  SM-6 ERAM- won't get it (240)
                  not what. Only carrier-based aviation, it is necessary to detect, it is necessary to take off (if not in protection) to detect, it is necessary to reach the range of defeat of the AIM (and this for an ESR of 3-5 m2 will be about 70 km) ...
                  PM hardly so easy
                  3.Bramos is Yakhont (and this in turn is the P-800 Onyx)
                  300km is a limitation under the rocket technology non-proliferation agreement (export)

                  P-800 Onyx along a high-altitude trajectory - 450-500 km = Granita
                  Based Onyx Bastion
                  The bastion is now completing trials with new control units: range of the anti-ship model at a variable height (the so-called mixed profile) - up to 300 km, and ground - several times more.

                  think about it
                  1. Roman 11
                    Roman 11 4 August 2015 08: 39
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    P-800 Onyx along a high-altitude trajectory - 450-500 km = Granita

                    Where does the data come from? Are you the general designer of the P-800 ??
                    1. opus
                      opus 4 August 2015 13: 23
                      +1
                      Quote: Novel 11
                      Where does the data come from?

                      1.Viam supervadet vadens.
                      2. rummage find
                      3. From the technical characteristics of the anti-ship missiles, the starting solid propellant rocket engine of 500 kg (total), the ramjet engine 3D55 with a thrust of 4000 kg
                      and TC tanks "flooded" for export, "cut off" BIP resource, export guidance and self-destruction system

                      A missile can use several flight profiles:
                      - Lo-Hi-Lo (mixed profile) - after launch, the rocket gains a height of 14000 m before the target is hit, drops to a height of 5-15 m.
                      - Lo-Lo-Lo (low-altitude profile) - flight altitude - several tens of meters, lower speed, less range.


                      - Complex 3K55 "Onyx", missile 3M55 "Onyx" - SS-NX-26 / SS-N-26 STROBILE - a variant of the complex and missile for the Russian Navy.

                      - Complex 3K55E "Yakhont", rocket 3M55E "Yakhont" - export version of the complex and missiles, the missile is characterized by a somewhat simplified control and guidance system.
                      4. From the missile technology control regime (MTCR)
                      The technical annex consists of two parts - a list of goods that are subject to Category I restrictions, and a list of goods that are subject to Category II restrictions.

                      Category I (consists of 2 sections) in fact, it prohibits the transfer to other states of a rocket as a whole with a maximum range of 300 km or more with a payload weight of 500 kg or more (it is possible to convert the payload weight to a range and vice versa). It is also forbidden to transfer complete systems (engines, control systems, software, technologies) used for complete delivery vehicles.


                      Quote: Novel 11
                      Are you the general designer of the P-800 ??

                      belay
                      weird question. No.
                      What?
                      (But I was in production, I was holding it in my hands)
                      1. Roman 11
                        Roman 11 4 August 2015 18: 11
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        Are you the general designer of the P-800 ??

                        weird question. No.

                        If you would say YES and if the "father" himself swears it ... Of course, I won't believe it. Don't even ask why, nobody knows. )))))))) Only after 50 years can it be declassified, and even then it is doubtful.
                      2. opus
                        opus 4 August 2015 20: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: Novel 11
                        Only after 50 years can it be declassified, and even then it is doubtful.

                        onyx?
                        Do not make me laugh
                        Russia no longer has an enterprise capable of developing liquid ramjet engines (SPVRD). In 2004 JSC Flame-M was closed.

                        A small part of the staff now works in the propulsion department of the NPO Mechanical Engineering on adaptation of 3D-55 for anti-ship missiles PJ-10 BrahMos... Production of both the engine and the missile is carried out by the Strela Production Association in Orenburg. The rights to the SPVRD lines 3D-80 and "52" now belong to Soyuz TMKB, but there are practically no "direct-flow engines" left there and work is not being carried out.
                        If there is an export version, you can "forget" about the neck
                      3. Roman 11
                        Roman 11 4 August 2015 22: 56
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        Russia no longer has an enterprise capable of developing liquid ramjet engines (SPVRD).

                        You know, launching this technology with a new one is not easy. But would there be money? The documentation remained, even specialists ... For 11 years, the equipment capabilities have changed - there are 3D printers. Maybe somewhere else there is or is left, we will have everything, there is no other way.
                        Quote: opus
                        If there is an export version, you can "forget" about the neck

                        Yes, for export version
                      4. opus
                        opus 4 August 2015 23: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Novel 11
                        Yes, for export version

                        if there is an export version, you can forget about the neck (Egypt, Iraq, former Warsaw, etc.)
                        Do you naively assume that besides the cut-down capabilities (polypropylene in the tank, self-liquidator, BIP with a lesser resource) - is there something else?
                        Mother ... this is a new product, it costs a lot of money
                      5. Roman 11
                        Roman 11 4 August 2015 23: 36
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        if there is an export version, you can forget about the neck (Egypt, Iraq, former Warsaw, etc.)

                        I won’t argue, but just in case, and it happens to be all sorts - the defense is a neck. As there, the wind is blowing, calendar leaves are changing. Who could have foreseen what is now independent?
                2. Roman 11
                  Roman 11 4 August 2015 08: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  range like Granite

                  And what about Granite? Claimed 700? Americans were replicated, and it’s generally accepted that 700 ...... There are big doubts about the range and other individual performance characteristics of most weapons, both with us and with us. Think for yourself if the enemy knows about everything, then it will be ineffective.
                  1. opus
                    opus 4 August 2015 13: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Novel 11
                    And what about Granite? Claimed 700?

                    Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 539-186 of July 10, 1969 on the ROC "Granite"

                    Range:
                    - 700-800 km (on a high-altitude trajectory, according to TTZ VPK at the Council of Ministers of the USSR 1966)
                    - 200 km (on a low altitude trajectory, according to TTZ VPK at the Council of Ministers of the USSR 1966)
                    - 500 km (according to TTZ VPK under the USSR Council of Ministers 1968.)
                    Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 686-214 of July 19, 1983 (adoption); and
                    Manufacturers' data: cruise - short-life turbojet engine KR-21-300 / product 21 developed by AMNTK Soyuz (Ufa NPO MOTOR), onboard equipment of the control system of the pilot plant NII-49 / NPO Granit
                    - 700 km (on coastal targets)
                    - 625 km (nuclear warhead, altitude path, data not confirmed)
                    - 500-550 km (RCC, conventional warhead, altitude path, data not confirmed)
                    - 200 km (nuclear warhead, low altitude trajectory)
                    - 145 km (RCC, conventional warhead, low altitude trajectory)



                    It would have been more (according to the development of OKB-52 within the framework of the research work "Granite", it turned out 13 m long)
                    But according to the TTZ military industrial complex under the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 1966 and 1968 for the creation of a missile complex were to be launched from the Malachite launcher.

                    --------------------
                    Department 08 "NPO Mashinostroyenia" is working on a partial modernization of the main engine of the 3M45-2 rocket; it is possible that they will return to the version with the 4D04 ramjet engine developed by NPO Krasny Oktyabr (OKB-670 of General Designer MM Bondaryuk). There, the speed is 4 m and the range is different.


                    Americans have nothing to do with
                    1. Roman 11
                      Roman 11 4 August 2015 19: 00
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 539-186 of July 10, 1969 on the ROC "Granite"

                      This is not a ruling, but a filkin letter ..... Once upon a time, almost in childhood, reading (Azarov the Undefeated ?? I don’t remember exactly) admiring the breakthrough from besieged Sevastopol, they argued hoarsely with a comrade, they say our heroic ships survived A greater load and greater damage than intended for them ...... Tolley Tashkent, or someone else survived the attack up to 90 attacks alone, in my opinion 86. Given how much water took, what cargo, what damage - it turned out for it beyond fiction. Very often, and the same Borodino? A ship is being prepared in a hurry, it does not show design characteristics, either by displacement or by full speed, cruising range, etc. Hence it’s customary to cook blunders, so that later they juggle with numbers on the forums - but in fact they underestimate what happened well and overestimate what they barely reach, not even by technical characteristics but as a weapon. And about all kinds of incidents during exercises or in operation, there is no question, the same production marriages - well, where is the guarantee that the last decisive, penetrating anti-aircraft gun dome will reach the target? And do the parties suitable for the expiration date all show the originally prescribed? If the war, and of which 85% only reached the intended range ?? Questions, questions. The technique is complicated. People get sick, robots break down - nothing lasts forever and is not guaranteed, even a Kalashnikov assault rifle))
                      1. opus
                        opus 4 August 2015 21: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Novel 11
                        This is not a decree, but a filkin letter.

                        What then is "not a filkin"
                        An article for topvar "Results of the week"? grated porridge for yo?
                        Do not make me laugh.
                        Quote: Novel 11
                        If the war, and of which 85% only reached the intended range ??

                        I don’t know how much now, but before it was 94-98%.
                        But not the point.
                        This is always the case with everyone.
                        The technique is complex. The conditions of use are not Bahamas.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        4 August 2015 22: 13
                        -2
                        Quote: opus
                        What then is "not a filkin"

                        here they are, rays of truth, breaking through the darkness

                        http://topwar.ru/30344-my-prisutstvuem-na-processe-sozdaniya-mirovoy-diktatury-p

                        ederastov.html
                      3. Roman 11
                        Roman 11 4 August 2015 23: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: opus
                        What then is "not a filkin"

                        Certainly not the decisions of the Council of Ministers ....... and even go through the KGB scan, or even from the bowels of the committee ..... We have here at facility X, a couple of years ago, khe, ..... an unpleasant episode from the Cold War, and no, only a person at work quietly so - that's it. And this is now, with the current democratic mess, and in those days, with order, it was completely tin. So where they need and what they need, they know how to camouflage, and where they do it, they know that it is possible, that it is impossible. We will not get a dialogue on this topic, it is hidden from society, that's for sure.
        4. kotvov
          kotvov 3 August 2015 21: 12
          +1
          The radiation safety measures taken are evidenced by the clothes of those present,
          and you did not try to ask what happened to them later?
          1. Santa Fe
            4 August 2015 21: 33
            +1
            Quote: kotvov
            and you did not try to ask what happened to them later?

            and you are going to live 100 years, during the third world?

            the ship and crew will complete the task - break through where necessary, bring the convoy, drop off
            what will happen to them in 5 years - does not matter within the current question

            anti-nuclear warrant, distance between ships at least 1000 meters
      2. Olezhek
        Olezhek 9 August 2015 13: 58
        0
        A colleague in this case demonstrated the extreme survivability of the battleship.
    2. opus
      opus 3 August 2015 15: 40
      +2
      Quote: D-Master
      For some reason, they absolutely did not want to sink

      so what?
      After using the nuclear weapons battleship (as well as another ship) - it is ABSOLUTELY not suitable for further use (at least for the period 1 / 2 of the decay of the main lancing factors of nuclear weapons)

      the explosion force 4 EB amounted to (2 stage) 300-600 kg (someone writes only 65 tons, for the stage 1 and 2) TNT.
      2 Stage - This has been blown up by the 2 and O2.Duration up to approximately 3 sec. characterized by intensive hydrogen production (according to some estimates up to 200 kg), its release into the central hall of the reactor installation, the formation of a detonation air-hydrogen mixture (explosive mixture) and its detonation. The estimated TNT equivalent of the explosion is 300-600 kg of trinitrotoluene. The nature of the destruction indicates that the explosion was voluminous... big failed pop bomb.

      On April 26, the "secrecy" stamp was removed from a number of documents of the SBU concerning the Chernobyl accident, UNIAN reports. So, according to the document "Conclusion of a specialist" dated May 16, 1986, the power of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was equivalent to the explosion of 30 tons of TNT.
      30 tnt tnt or 65 tnt tnt cause doubt (there would be a result as in Hiroshima) (

      more or less reliable here:
      http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913r_web.pdf
      But not the point
      Total?
      Total infection, and after all, the reaction products there, in 4 EBs, are not at all those that are BNC.
      What will happen to the battleship?
      Who can serve on it? Who will take him to the port?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 August 2015 17: 28
        +2
        Quote: opus
        Total infection, and after all, the reaction products there, in 4 EBs, are not at all those that are BNC.
        What will happen to the battleship?
        Who can serve on it? Who will take him to the port?

        But do not confuse a peaceful atom with a military atom. smile

        Paradoxically, a military atom gives a much shorter-lived infection than a peaceful one. Rule 7/10: dose rates (radiation levels), measured after 7 hours, will decrease by 10 times, after 49 hours - by 100 times.

        And the peaceful atom, on the contrary, fouls with long-lived isotopes. Across the Leningrad region, the "tail" from the Leningrad nuclear power plant still fills after unsuccessful tests in 1975.
        1. opus
          opus 3 August 2015 20: 54
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          But do not confuse a peaceful atom with a military atom.

          why confuse it?
          Chernobyl was essentially a pop bomb, dirt.

          the combat mission: the maximum striking effect of technology and manpower of the enemy
          Quote: Alexey RA
          7 / 10 rule: dose rates (radiation levels),

          You bring old data, first-born.



          Now, for goals and objectives, it is possible and this way, as TK requires.
          It is necessary to make dirty b. - easy (it's even easier), only the power in the fuel cell will decrease
          -The neutron charge will exhaust 90% of the energy in the most severe gamma radiation, and the remainder of the fast neutrons (which will fly away further 1500m) will be absorbed by the atmosphere, but before "absorbed" they will still show themselves
          And how to "defend"? paraffin, polyethylene, polypropylene, concrete, wet soil?
          (steel is "not very" - gammascopes)
          -the peaceful atom will NEVER give such an EMP, a bright stream (concrete to melt) and a shock wave.


          Dirty xnumx world yes. BUT to get dirty! not destroy.
          And this is due to the large mass of the active zone (the reactor from 90tn), the volume, the cooling system and the fact that all the structural elements of the nuclear power plant have already taken the dose
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 3 August 2015 17: 32
        0
        Quote: opus
        After the use of nuclear weapons, the battleship (as well as another ship) is ABSOLUTELY not suitable for further use (at least for a period of 1/2 decay of the main lancing factors of nuclear weapons

        I’ll fit in a little bit.
        For elements with a shorter half-life, the damaging factor is higher, since the radiation intensity is higher, using the example of the iodine isotope, the half-life is three days of high intensity.
        So, strontium, plutonium, and other long-livers whose half-life is low-intensity and long-lived (a gamma of particles is emitted per minute but hundreds of years) will remain in a week later.
        1. opus
          opus 3 August 2015 21: 08
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          So, strontium, plutonium, and other long-livers whose half-life is low-intensity and long-lived (a gamma of particles is emitted per minute but hundreds of years) will remain in a week later.

          1. Research conducted on the eve of the 20th anniversary (2006) of the Chernobyl disaster showed that the radiation background near the building Kiev City Hall reaches 43 mcr / h with a norm of 25 mcr / h.
          (maybe that's why there are all such epan ***, well, you understand belay ?). For 29 years now, as under the dose

          In apartments of prefabricated houses on Obolon 9th 2006), the radiation background of the walls reaches 30 mcr / h. It is possible to reduce radiation from the walls by pasting them with a special lead film.
          Well, or putting on pots (what we saw)


          Before the Chernobyl accident, the background radiation rate throughout the Soviet Union was 4-20 μR / h, and in 1988 in Ukraine the norm was raised to 25 μR / h.
          2. Live data (combat use) we have for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

          -If in the Hiroshima bomb everything that could have completely collapsed, its power would be hundreds of times greater, and infection too . These were the imperfect first-born

          From 64 kg only 7 kg passed the cleavage stage, and from this mass only 600 mg turned into energy - explosive energy, which burned everything in its path for several kilometers, leveling the city with the earth by a blast wave, starting a series of fires and plunging all living things into a stream of radiation. It is believed that about 70 people died immediately, another 000 died from injuries and radiation by 70.

          This patient (picture taken by the Japanese military on October 3, 1945) was located about 1 981,20 m from the epicenter, when radiation beams overtook him on the left. The cap protected part of the head from burns. (US National Archives)


          Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt and settled immediately after the war, today there are about 1,6 million people (1,2 million in Hiroshima and 400.000 in Nagasaki), and the radioactive background is practically no different from the natural radioactive background of Japan. But it detonated TOTAL 600mg of active substance

          3.Just need to compare the mass of the bomb and the load mass of the RBMK reactor. To the latter add the mass of radioactive materials of construction. Primarily graphite and water.

          the mass of uranium in Hiroshima is about 60 kg. (slightly more than critical), the mass of the "dirty zone of the reactor" is about 300 tons. is there anything to compare?

          Give me a 300t nuclear bomb, and Chernobyl will seem like a paradise

          and about time later it will be karasho ...
          So : There is no "complete (semi) decay period". Phonite, harms and burns. And the induced (from gamma, neutrons) in the structural elements will spoil
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 August 2015 23: 19
            +4
            Quote: opus
            There is no "complete (semi) decay period". Phonitis, hurts and burns. And the induced (from gamma, neutrons) in the structural elements will shit

            My comment does not contradict yours, I just wanted to say that the first time after the explosion, the decay of light elements occurs actively and the radiation background is very high but quickly decays because the half-life and the next half-life occur quickly, in a week and when the American military arrived on the ship, the phoning ship remained there strontium, plutonium, etc. heavy isotopes, moderate pollution density and short-term presence of people is not critical. But in the early hours of this ship, people would very likely receive a lethal dose.
            I live 50 km from the city of Pripyat. Now I have 12-15 mcr / h in the yard, I didn’t notice the decrease in mental abilities of the people around me, maybe I started a little, about Ukrainians, my opinion was that they cheated on people, it could being in our country and in Russia, people are dying, life is getting worse, brothers were overlooked, they were too selfish somewhere, the tragedy is not only in Donetsk, it is all over Ukraine.
            1. opus
              opus 4 August 2015 01: 26
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              for a week and when the US military arrived on the ship to flood, strontium, plutonium and other heavy isotopes remained there, the pollution density is moderate and the short-term presence of people is not critical.

              I don’t argue. That's right.
              1.But this week / month the ship as a combat unit is disabled
              2. I tried to prove
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But do not confuse a peaceful atom with a military atom
              -that this is NOT a true postulate
              -spray with a thermal (!) explosion "peaceful uranium" and weapon-grade plutonium of equal mass and equal volume.
              300 tons (gutka) 30 kg each. Result? Which is more dangerous?
              - -spray with a thermal (!) explosion "peaceful uranium" and initiate a nuclear reaction of weapons-grade pluton equal mass and equal volume.
              Result? Which is more dangerous?
              do not seriously compare the sputtering of 300 tons of power unit by a thermal explosion and the nuclear reaction, at different (by 4 orders of magnitude) masses
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              pollution density is moderate and short-term people are not critical.

              I wouldn’t go, in shorts for sure
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              I live 50 km from the city of Pripyat, now I have 12-15 mcr / h in the yard, I didn’t notice the decrease in mental abilities of the people around me, maybe I started moving a little, about Ukrainians my opinion is that they cheated on people’s head,

              1. I brought about Ukraine as a joke and about Kiev (!).
              The fact is, for 10 years something abnormal has been observed.
              Although I can assume: Gosvodokanal and "additives" + nlp. Very similar to the American methodology
              2.And in Pripyat, of course, less: what crumbled-removed and neutralized.
              Only designs that have been degraded by radiation are alive, in life, they are now turned out + drain from the cooling system + equipment involved in the elimination

              Everything else "flew away" in the form of aerosols, dust, etc.
              Here the wind rose is important (and the river itself)

              3. Torch and the inscription "Chernobyl NPP named after VI Lenin" at the entrance to Pripyat.
              VERY STRONGLY phonite

              For an eight-hour stay in the zone, each of the participants in the trip (to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant) receives a dose of radiation equivalent to the dose that we all receive daily living in Moscow. As for the sneakers, then no man can leave the zone if the radioactive background on his clothes is above normal.From time to time it happens that with radiation monitoring at the exit from the zone, someone has exceeded the background on the shoes. But this is also not fatal - in such situations, the issue is solved by washing shoes ...
          2. spech
            spech 4 August 2015 04: 10
            0
            Of 64 kg, only 7 kg passed the cleavage stage, and from this mass only 600 mg turned into energy

            But it detonated TOTAL 600mg of active substance

            do not confuse soft with warm (E = MG ^ 2)
            1. opus
              opus 4 August 2015 13: 08
              +2
              Quote: spech
              do not confuse soft with warm (E = MG ^ 2)

              nor no, I generally nor when I do not compare the incomparable.
              And I will allow you to recommend NOT to CONFUSE, and will return to high school.
              1. Since you have decided to "teach", then let me ask for an explanation:
              - sideways FULL ANIGILATION FORMULA?
              E = 2E0 = 2mc², where E0 is the rest energy, m is the mass of particles, c is the speed of light in vacuum ..
              (Or in common people the postulate of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein.
              )
              refers to the nuclear fission and fusion reaction?
              Not at all, but in particular?



              At present, the use of annihilation for energy or military purposes is impossible, since at this stage of technological development it is not possible to create and hold for a sufficiently long time the necessary amount of antimatter.

              reference:
              Approximately 1 · 1 joule of energy is released per kg of antimatter and 1,8 kg of matter, which is equivalent to the energy released during the explosion 42,96 megatons of trinitrotoluene. . Those 2 kg of substance= almost 43 megatons TNT


              Tsar bomb (26,5 t = 26500 kg of substance), banged on 57 megatons.
              2. For the future (if someone wants to correctly poke his nose the next time))
              -for nuclear fission reaction use
              Δm = (Z · mp + (A - Z) · mn) - Me.
              Wsv = Δm ⋅ s> 2
              The mass defect corresponds to the loss of energy, which is the binding energy, the rest of the scoreboard




              -for a nuclear fusion reaction
              E = kT (roughly)
              and scoreboard:

              3. And in the dispute (ours) it’s generally not about the energy released, but about the radioactive infection ...
              / carelessness? or itch?
      3. Olezhek
        Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 03
        0
        Ischo and ischo times - no one says that the battleships can be used like this in a nuclear war.
        BUT they survived at exorbitant nuclear explosion loads - like - a crash test for a car.
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 August 2015 07: 13
    +13
    That's just "Vanguard" was born. When he was no longer needed by anyone. New weapons entered the arena, new principles of their use, new opportunities ... And battleships, whose armor was intended to counter with random hits (Just don't tell me that opponents aim at great distances and decent speeds SPECIALLY at weakly defended places!) Yes, you can even now find a use for them, no one disputes this. But today the world is ruled by different conditions, different standards.
    So you only have to nostalgia about battleships wink
    Respect Kaptsov for trying to romanticize the past, from different angles to file the virtues of this class of ships, it is always interesting to read it hi But only in today's realities no one will give money to recreate such a miracle unsinkable even by missiles, because there are too many clever weapons to appear and not the fact that armor designed to counter random hits will come in handy when fighting targeted threats where it impossible to put hi
    We’ll have to put up with it ... EVERYTHING, THE TRAIN IS GONE
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 3 August 2015 08: 16
      +9
      Quote: Rurikovich
      EVERYTHING, THE TRAIN GONE
      But what about our "Peter the Great", by all standards a nuclear missile battleship (or even a battle cruiser). The train did not leave, dear Andrey, on the contrary, new materials and technologies raise the topic of armoring warships, increasing their protection. The abandonment of armor was not in the least connected with the cumbersomeness of the first missiles and computers, which devoured weight. Now what occupied a room, like a computer, fits in a desktop computer, even a tablet or smartphone, and rockets have become more compact. Bullet-proof vests, like the descendants of chain mail and armor, have long returned to the army, and warships also need their own "bulletproof vest". In this, I see the benefit of Oleg Kaptsov's articles on the topic of battleships as ships with maximum protection.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 3 August 2015 08: 30
        +1
        Everything has already been built .. before us:

        Aircraft carrier structural protection includes a surface part
        (three armored decks, as well as longitudinal armored bulkheads an-
        Gar) and underwater (longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, covering
        reactor compartments, ammunition cellars and fuel tanks
        us). It is designed to protect the vital centers of
        Rablya from contact explosions of conventional warheads of the anti-core -
        rockets, artillery shells, torpedoes. Armor thickness in
        the area of ​​the waterline is 150 mm. The bottom is protected by armored flooring.
        unsinkability (second bottom) and bulkheads, into the space between
        with which a porous filler of a special composition is pressed
        tava. Vital centers have extra reservations
        63,5 mm Kevlar. For ship equipment and military equipment
        Duplication, redundancy and dispersal are contemplated. Know
        when creating aircraft carriers, careful attention was paid to lower
        intensity of hydroacoustic, electromagnetic, heat
        vogo and other physical fields. Fire safety
        stationary automatic systems, self-propelled foam
        generator sets, portable fire extinguishers. Pre-
        Motren ability to determine the fire zone and control the means of
        fire extinguishing from the navigation bridge or from the control post
        aviation on the flight deck located in the superstructure. An-
        the deck is equipped with fire curtains, which
        30 s can cut off the ignition area.
        1. m262
          m262 3 August 2015 12: 40
          +2
          Thanks for the clarification, I could not understand the memories of our submariners and pilots, they are skeptical about their chances of drowning an aircraft carrier.
      2. Santa Fe
        3 August 2015 10: 09
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        by all standards a nuclear missile battleship

        Battleship is a highly protected warship

        Does TARKR carry a lot of armor?
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 3 August 2015 11: 24
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Battleship - is a highly protected warship
          So about this and speech, that the "battleship" as it were, but no armor. In the first comment I wanted to ascribe that the filling of "Peter" in the "Richelieu" or "Littorio" building (in terms of protection) would have been better, but then I did not, it was necessary to make an amendment for new technologies and materials, but in general I think so. Now, not only destroyers, but also frigates in displacement have reached the level of cruisers of the Second World War, they would not have been prevented from increasing their protection and survivability in battle. There are many skeptics and just pranksters-skalozubov with criticism, they say, a torpedo with a "vigorous" warhead will sink everything, so, according to this logic, everything is generally useless, ships, planes, tanks, body armor. And the world is mired in wars, and protection seems superfluous to anyone. In the picture, our aircraft carrier among the battleships of the Second World War, as they say, compare the values.
          1. Santa Fe
            3 August 2015 12: 04
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            In the figure, our TAKR among the battleships of World War II, as they say, compare the values.

            The figure confirms what is

            Armless high-breasted tin
            What does 1144 have to do with talking about WWII-era sheltered ships?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 3 August 2015 12: 10
              +1
              Before RCC, these protected ships are the same tins.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 3 August 2015 12: 37
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              An armless high-sided tin can, what does 1144 have to do with talking about WWII-era sheltered ships?
              What a trouble, people cease to understand me ... What is the attitude? Not what, if we talk about booking, but it could be, be the aircraft carrier not with a "cardboard" side, and not a "tin", but, indeed, a nuclear missile battleship with good protection. So it turns out that our aircraft carrier is a "battleship" (or "battle cruiser") in size and purpose, and a "civilian liner" in terms of protection. Near comment from strannik1985, so it should be noted that the defense of battleships of the "Littorio" class was noted as successful, be it in our days against anti-ship missiles. In short, reducing my "tongue-tied", such ships as our TAKR would not hurt to be better protected. I have spoken about it.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 3 August 2015 19: 41
                +1
                Not TAKR, but TARKR. TAKRs - aircraft carrying cruisers.

                the size and purpose of our aircraft carrier "battleship"

                In size - mb, but not in terms of displacement.

                but for the protection of "civil liner".

                A very thoughtful statement ...
              2. Santa Fe
                4 August 2015 09: 05
                +1
                Quote: Per se.
                ships like our TAKR would do well to be better protected. I spoke about it.

                to any ships with 2 bucks stuffing cost
            3. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 3 August 2015 15: 50
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Armless high-breasted tin

              That you are somehow biased towards this ship, of course not a battleship, but it’s hard to call a tin.
              The cruiser’s hull is armored: the board in the vicinity of the reactor compartment is 100 mm, at the extremities 35 mm, the steering compartment 70 mm, the deck 50 mm, the wheelhouse 80 mm
      3. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 3 August 2015 13: 07
        +3
        Quote: Per se.
        But what about our "Peter the Great", by all standards, a nuclear missile battleship

        Well, let's start with the fact that the very term "Lincor" is outdated. Well, now there are no general sea battles with linear formation of ships.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 3 August 2015 13: 24
          +3
          Quote: Zerstorer
          Well, general sea battles with the linear construction of ships are not happening now.
          So torpedo attacks by destroyers do not occur, and torpedoes on them have long been no longer the main weapon, some do not have them at all. Nevertheless, the destroyer remained as a class of ships. It's not about the name at all, even if you call it a galleon, but the same "Peter the Great" is the strongest surface ship of our fleet (and, one must think, not only ours), and its tasks, albeit without lining up, are actually similar to those of battleships in war at sea.
      4. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 3 August 2015 17: 41
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        But what about our "Peter the Great", by all standards a nuclear missile battleship (or even a battle cruiser). The train did not leave, dear Andrey, on the contrary, new materials and technologies raise the topic of armoring warships, increasing their protection. The abandonment of armor was not in the least due to the cumbersomeness of the first missiles and computers, which devoured weight. Now what occupied a room, like a computer, fits in a desktop computer, even a tablet or smartphone, and rockets have become more compact. Bullet-proof vests, like the descendants of chain mail and armor, have long returned to the army, and warships also need their own "bulletproof vest".

        But in connection with new technologies and materials, designers spend the released weight on increasing the ammunition load! After all, it is unlikely that, for example, while saving weight, for example, 500 tons for a destroyer, the designers will put it on booking ... Well, well. Suppose that 50 missiles remain in the next model of the ship, but we will reserve a bit. And if we shoot down 20 planes, then the remaining five, for which there were not enough missiles, are unlikely to sink us ... After all, we have armor! NONSENSE!!!! This weight will be used to increase the ammunition load so that not a single rocket or plane reaches the target! After all, today's ship’s air defense system is its armor. After all, the crew is fighting smart weapons, not random hits. And if the crew is trained and the rockets are in order and quantity, then no armor is needed! hi
        And the combat stability of the compound depends on the ammunition, training, but no matter how the degree of booking ...
    2. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 10: 19
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But only in today's realities no one will give money to recreate such a miracle unsinkable even by missiles, because there are too many clever weapons to appear and not the fact that armor designed to counter random hits will come in handy when fighting targeted threats where it impossible to put
      We’ll have to put up with it ... EVERYTHING, THE TRAIN IS GONE

      I'm on the drum, not I have to fight on these pelvis

      We will lose the cruiser for a couple of lards from the very first small-sized anti-ship missile

      Air defense cruiser Chancellorville could not intercept the RCC simulator, damage of $ 15 million (subsonic racket without warhead)
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 August 2015 10: 52
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Air defense cruiser Chancellorville could not intercept the RCC simulator

        Hit in any case above a hypothetical armored belt ...
        1. Santa Fe
          3 August 2015 11: 01
          +2
          Quote: Mera Joota
          above a hypothetical armored belt ...

          Do you seriously think that a modern armored cruiser would look like ships of the past?
          Why does a modern ship have a powerful b / p in the KVL area?

          Here you can book everything in a row. Differentiated armor 50 ... 127 mm (Kruppian cemented steel) - followed by an anti-splinter bulkhead along the opposite compartment wall (puff of ceramic and steel), 20 compartments separated by anti-splinter bulkheads (25 ... 50 mm steel, Kevlar). A lot of ideas, concepts and modern technologies
          Rational angles of inclination of the armor are in the shape of a Zamwolt; there is practically no deck at all. Iron. But tenacious and powerful
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 3 August 2015 11: 53
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            tenacious and powerful


            If you do something like this today, then only in underwater performance. Disguise is a characteristic of combat vehicles, which in this century comes first.
            1. Santa Fe
              3 August 2015 12: 04
              +1
              Quote: Metlik
              If you do something like this today, it’s only underwater

              1. radars and air defense
              2. artillery
              1. Metlik
                Metlik 3 August 2015 12: 12
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                1. radars and air defense
                2. artillery


                Artillery will be replaced by cruise missiles, and radars and air defenses can act upon ascent. He emerged, saw - struck, and again under the water.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 3 August 2015 14: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Metlik
                  Artillery will be replaced by cruise missiles, and radars and air defenses can act upon ascent. He emerged, saw - struck, and again under the water.

                  Hello, "clamshell" (pr. 675).

                  It remains to take the last step - to launch the KR from the underwater position, without surfacing - and you will get the SSGN (pr. 670 or 949). smile
            2. yehat
              yehat 13 August 2015 13: 24
              0
              not only disguise, water also serves as a good defense.
              however, it is not necessary to rush to radical extremes - either a submarine or a surface ship. You can also make a simply submerged unit.
          2. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 August 2015 15: 43
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Iron. But tenacious and powerful

            It is true, but the question is about costs and expediency. I agree that the start of large-scale sea battles (without nuclear weapons), the Americans will blow dust from these projects and begin to make such ships, but now there really are no opponents against which similar ships would be useful. US admirals and politicians pose too many tasks for the fleet to complete which requires a large number of ships. A large amount means large operating costs, and fuel oil is now oh how expensive, an increase in dimensions will definitely increase fuel oil costs. And this is an increase in the number of supply fleets and fuel reserves at numerous bases. It requires a revolution in the energy sector, cold fusion and something like that, classic nuclear power plants are no way out.
            Neolincors would be useful to a non-ambitious sea power (rich) which would pursue a containment policy at the expense of qualitative superiority ...
          3. opus
            opus 3 August 2015 16: 22
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Here you can book everything in a row. Differentiated armor 50 ... 127 mm (Kruppian cemented steel) - followed by an anti-splinter bulkhead along the opposite wall of the compartment (puff made of ceramic and steel

            won't drown?
            Aerojet General Corp. Starmat Combined Armor with a front layer of corundum ceramics of the AD85 or AD95 brands and an aluminum alloy substrate 2024-T4 total weight 49,6 kg protected only the pilot's seat (size can be estimated) UH-1 and CH-54 only from the 7,62 bullet mm
            or HFC armor, density 3,6 kg / m3, same from 7,62mm

            - how much is needed from protivosnaryadnoy protection? from PF warhead RCC in 400kg?
            -how much will take up useful volume?
            2. Cost ... DDDG-100 with full armor based on Mexas armored modules (for example)
            No one will be surprised then at a cost close to the cost of the Ford aircraft carrier.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 3 August 2015 18: 43
              0
              A ship will cost 100 billion rubles if the hull is made of titanium armor and boron carbide inserts.
              1. opus
                opus 3 August 2015 21: 19
                +2
                Quote: Vadim237
                A ship will cost 100 billion rubles if the hull

                I think with the current course and for more.
                But why?
                In such a savage way to catch the enemy at the "trough"?
                So changing the nomenclature of weapons (power of warhead generators, etc.) is MUCH CHEAPER than building battleships.
                Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, the most powerful power plants, thousands of crew, piers, moorings, supplies, logistics and so on ....
                WHAT FOR?
                The author simply does not understand.
                The concept of the battleship: a ship with heavy weapons (artillery) covered by armor, in order to, under the cover of this armor, drag the gun to the zone of its operation and shake up another ship (or coastal object), while taking less damage, not getting critical damage , and protect the crew, add up after the trend to the base, to fix it for 1-2 years
                ALL.
                This concept was built before the advent of "normal aviation"
                As soon as the aircraft got on the wing, the battleship became almost impotent.
                And as soon as a guided weapon (missile) appeared, the battleship will not save even Viagra.
                And nuclear generally leveled the concept of armor (and the need for it)
                What to make an armored monitor with a vertical start up control?
                Armored barge + tug.
                Cheaper by the order.
                Well, what's the point?
                No armor will save you from a critical hit, something that "floats", thanks to Archimedes, is always ready to sink.
                Is it worth it? and how much does it cost to carry all this junk (Tirpitz spent as much on heating boilers as a submarine on a combat campaign of 30000 tons seems to be)
                1. Roman 11
                  Roman 11 3 August 2015 21: 47
                  0
                  Quote: opus
                  to warm up ........ 30000 tons seems to be
                  Nothing, a normal economy ....... I hope this will not come in the future.
                2. yehat
                  yehat 13 August 2015 13: 28
                  0
                  thousandth carriages in the past. No need for demagoguery. Now mechanization and automation do wonders. For comparison, we can cite the number of crews of modern ships, but the same Sharks.
              2. Santa Fe
                4 August 2015 06: 50
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                if the case is made of titanium armor and boron carbide inserts.

                What for??

                Krpuppovskaya armored steel!
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 August 2015 10: 52
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Air defense cruiser Chancellorville could not intercept the RCC simulator

        Hit in any case above a hypothetical armored belt ...
      3. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 3 August 2015 22: 19
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Air defense cruiser Chancellorville could not intercept the RCC simulator, damage of $ 15 million (subsonic racket without warhead)

        So, such and warriors! Vitsin said: It’s hard to learn, easy to work!
        That is why there are teachings. so that in case of war there are no such gouging !!! But the missile was received right away .... But if they had received the domestic one, but with a charge, then a cruiser without cutting soldier lol
    3. shans2
      shans2 3 August 2015 13: 40
      0
      the train left, but the stubborn gerontophiles remained laughing
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 27091965
      27091965 3 August 2015 18: 17
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      because there are too many smart weapons and it’s not the fact that armor designed to withstand random hits will come in handy when fighting targeted threats where it’s impossible to put



      "The battleship Missouri, on the winter night of February 24, 1991, fires at the advanced units of the Iraqi army. The Iraqis do not remain in debt - two anti-ship missiles" Haiin-2 "(Chinese copy of the Soviet anti-ship missile P-15" Termit "with an enlarged range), from an extremely short distance the British destroyer Gloucester shot down one Haiyin with the help of the Sea Dart air defense system - the wreckage of an Iraqi missile crashed into the water 600 meters from the Missouri (the first case of a successful interception in combat conditions of an anti-ship missile with the help of the air defense missile system), the crew of the battleship began to shoot off the dipole reflectors - with their help the second missile was diverted to the side (according to another version, the Haiin-2 anti-ship missile itself fell into the water). slabs 30 cm thick securely covered the crew and equipment. " MIC Oleg Kaptsov 07.08.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 3 August 2015 07: 15
    +8
    I quote: "The conclusion is obvious: even the use of guided bombs did not guarantee victory in a naval battle ... As a result of four attacks and nine dropped bombs (seven" Fritz "and a pair of armor-piercing 2000-pounds), only one battleship (" Roma ") could be sunk "- what is the arithmetic! Oleg, aren't you ashamed yourself?

    Does victory only mean sinking the battleship? And the fact that they skidded three more times, having received damage - this is the victory of the battleships ???? And the heroic race "Tirpitz" from biplanes is at least a triumph !!!
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 10: 03
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Himself is not ashamed?

      I'm proud of them
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Victory only means drowning the battleship?

      The stump is clear, so much effort has been spent
      it’s time to drown already

      yes, it does NOT sink
      Quote: Tlauicol
      And the fact that they draped three more times, getting damaged is the victory of the battleships

      This is a victory for their designers.
      Other ships in similar situations glued fins, and then their sailors then sucked crayfish at the bottom

      Similar in size and cost - aircraft carrier class
      heavy Taiho - stuck together with one torpedo
      heavy Lexington - from a pair of torpedoes
      Kaga, Akagi, Soryu - just a couple of high explosives on the flight deck, sorry, goodbye
      Wasp - enough torpedoes
      Princeton - Two 250 kg bombs, ready

      Fortunately, all the other large warships of that era had a solid constructive defense. And there was one dependence - the weaker the protection, the faster the ships died.
      But still they did well, compared to modern ships.

      The blown up destroyer Cole (even though the destroyer is 9000 tons, the explosion of 300 kg of explosives at the side, is completely out of order). Compare with New Orleans from the article! He crawled with all his might, on his own. With incomparably more severe damage
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 August 2015 12: 50
        +3
        Spend even 20-30 modern aircraft and guided bombs weighing a couple of tons in order to send the battleship for several months to be repaired does not look like an overrun.
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 24
          0
          And the pilots of the very aircraft will be Kamikaze?
          Something like this ?
          What does it mean to spend 20-30 modern aircraft?
          In all the US Air Force you will not find such a number of potential suicide bombers.
          Conclusion - we are building the Russian Yamato ..
          Of course we call it Rusich.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 August 2015 17: 39
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        heavy Taiho - stuck together with one torpedo
        heavy Lexington - from a pair of torpedoes

        In both cases, the cause was the actions of their own crew.
        "Lex" drowned its own RepDiv, which gave the go-ahead for the continued operation of the diesel generator in the room adjacent to the leaked aviation fuel tank. ODAB in its purest form.
        During the elimination of an aviation fuel spill from a damaged tank, the Taiho managed to spread the vapor through the ship ... the end is a little predictable. smile
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Wasp - enough torpedoes

        Wasp is discounted economy class AB. The product of interwar agreements is a ship built to select a displacement limit on AB.
  5. tlauicol
    tlauicol 3 August 2015 07: 38
    +7
    Another mantra from article to article:

    "During the battle, Rodney fired 380 406 mm and 716 152 mm shells, King George V - 339 356 mm and 660 133 mm, heavy cruisers Dorsetshire and Norfolk - 254 and 527 203, respectively -mm shells ".. Yeah, and on one killed Vietnamese they spent 200 rounds (not counting bombs / shells of napalm and Orange) - that's hardy, devils! Even the "lord" of "New Jersey" had to fire 000 42-inch shells per person killed - before that these cockroaches are tenacious! Constructive protection, however
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 10: 22
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Yeah, and for one killed Vietnamese they spent 200 000 cartridges

      at least 10% hit the target?))
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 3 August 2015 14: 37
        +1
        And in Tirpitz? all 3000 shells? however, you repeat this mantra (and another one about 700 sorties) as a routine
        1. Aviaded
          Aviaded 3 August 2015 15: 04
          +4
          I remember that after the Lancaster attack on Tirpitz, after which it capsized, the naval authorities told the aviation authorities that the battleship could not be considered sunk. They say that if his belly is sticking out of the water, then it is not sunk.
        2. Aviaded
          Aviaded 3 August 2015 15: 04
          0
          I remember that after the Lancaster attack on Tirpitz, after which it capsized, the naval authorities told the aviation authorities that the battleship could not be considered sunk. They say that if his belly is sticking out of the water, then it is not sunk.
        3. Santa Fe
          4 August 2015 09: 10
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          And in Tirpitz? all xnumx shells?

          If 250 (10%) is hit, then this is just a monstrous lot

          a pair of 8 'would be enough for today's shameful. or equivalent (unexploded exoset)
          Quote: Tlauicol
          and one more about 700 sorties

          clear figure
          5 was enough for someone (Kaga, Akagi)
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 4 August 2015 09: 50
            0
            If..
            Displacement disgrace? Try to sink 100 000 tons of disgrace - aircraft carrier Exocet
            A clear figure is Taranto or Roma
            1. Santa Fe
              4 August 2015 10: 06
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              sink the 100 000ton shame - Exocet aircraft carrier

              post pictures about the fire on forest table?
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Try to sink the 100 000ton shame - aircraft carrier

              better destroyer for 7 lard

              crew 180 people - there is no one to even fight for survivability
              absurd?
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 4 August 2015 12: 32
                0
                Do not bother. Drowned? What about Enterprise? - It doesn’t (according to your rules a complete victory :))).
                With modern AV, this does not work at all
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 3 August 2015 07: 46
    +11
    I do not quite understand why the victory of the battleships is so explicitly said? And the conclusion of their system is not considered? A damaged battleship does not participate in battles for several months, it takes resources and time to repair it. And it is not yet known what is more economically effective, simply to sink or severely damage to let go for repairs.
    With the advent of precision weapons, the battleship has become too vulnerable. The huge towers of the Civil Code are easily destroyed by missiles. Dropping from a height of an adjustable anti-bunker bomb, if it enters the arsenal, will put an unambiguous cross on the battleship.
    In the guise that was during WWII, the battleships are gone, that's all. This is history. The appearance of the modern battleship will be different. I won’t be especially surprised if it would be a stupid oil production platform, stuffed with missile-guided weapons from top to bottom.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 09: 44
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      And the conclusion of their system is not considered?

      No

      In the situations described above, the question was an edge: withstand the blow (at the cost of partial loss of combat effectiveness) or burn and sink along with the whole crew
      Quote: Wedmak
      A damaged battleship does not participate in battles for several months, it takes resources and time to repair it

      It is much better to lose the ship and its crew
      Quote: Wedmak
      And it is not yet known what is more economically effective, simply to sink or severely damage to let go for repairs.

      you write nonsense
      Quote: Wedmak
      With the advent of precision weapons, the battleship has become too vulnerable.

      All facts cited indicate otherwise.
      the word "too" is too much
      Quote: Wedmak
      Dumping from a height corrected anti-bunker bomb, if it enters the arsenal, it will put an unambiguous cross on the battleship.

      C-300 will put an unambiguous cross on the carrier aircraft
      Quote: Wedmak
      The appearance of the modern battleship will be different

      Does anyone argue with this except you?

      Article - about WWII ships, refutation of famous prejudices
      stories about capital ships of the past are a hymn to fantastic military stability. This is the standard. You need to strive for it, using existing technologies (this will allow you to create a highly protected missile cruiser with / and 20-25 thousand tons, with security like that of Queen Elizabeth + optimization of protection for the threats of modern times).

      Pentagon Project Capital Surface Warship (represented by office of force trancformation in 2007)
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 August 2015 10: 43
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Pentagon Project Capital Surface Warship

        Don't you think that 50 thousand tons of displacement is too much? This is indicated in the picture. We received the same Burke current five times as large as the displacement ...
        1. Santa Fe
          3 August 2015 11: 10
          +2
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Don't you think that 50 thousand tons of displacement is overkill?

          My opinion is optimal 20-25, for mass

          But these created their CSW for other tasks. Squadron combat core, duty at hot spots such as the Strait of Hormuz
          Quote: Mera Joota
          .Received the same Burke current five times the displacement ...

          Oh sure
          there according to calculations up to 400 missile cells
          + artillery for shelling the coast (305 and 127 mm)
          + EPIC BATTLE STABILITY

          construction cost - 2 times cheaper than Nimitz with an air wing
          operating cost - like the cruiser Ticonderoga

          picture - nothing, this is amateur graphics
          the project itself is outlined here -
          https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.


          pdf
      2. srelock
        srelock 3 August 2015 12: 38
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Article - about WWII ships, refutation of famous prejudices
        stories about capital ships of the past are a hymn to fantastic military stability. This is the standard. You need to strive for it, using existing technologies (this will allow you to create a highly protected missile cruiser with / and 20-25 thousand tons, with security like that of Queen Elizabeth + optimization of protection for the threats of modern times).

        Oleg hi Do not take as a standard the concept of building artillery ships. Elements of structural protection, such as: shatterproof / local reservation, duplication of the most important units, etc. used on modern ships, but to block the citadel and armored belt at 0,5m. already no one will be thick. With the advent of the era of highly accurate, guided weapons systems, the passive defense of ships was replaced by active. The latter has a number of fundamental differences from classic armor:
        -the ability to defeat not only the ammunition attacking the ship, but also their carriers.
        -modern "armor" covers not only the ship, but also controls the air, surface and underwater space around it for tens (or even hundreds) kilometers.
        -allows you to implement the principle of so-called collective defense and attack in a group of ships.
        - Does not require the construction of ships in tens of thousands of tons of displacement.
        Those. the modern concept of protecting and attacking ships implies the use of a single automated system (although different ammunition is designed for different tasks) and even capable of combining with others (ships / aircraft / data networks, etc.) Your favorite Aegis Combat System from this opera.
        All this, as well as the density of water, is the main obstacle to the creation of sufficiently armored (in the classical sense) ships. So the emergence of "highly protected cruisers" is unpromising.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 August 2015 09: 14
          0
          Quote: srelock
          but to fortify the citadel and armored belt in 0,5m. thick

          It is not necessary
          127 mm optimum (differentiated)

          + 1000 tons of shatterproof bulkheads

          all skeptics - Queen Elizabeth and his articles load (1915 year)
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 4 August 2015 09: 51
            0
            Get a modern aircraft carrier request
            1. Santa Fe
              4 August 2015 10: 08
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Get a modern aircraft carrier

              flammable and explosive objects on the entire upper deck, no matter how you protect them, everything is in sight

              moreover, the only dent on the deck will make him 100% unworkable
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 4 August 2015 12: 27
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                flammable and explosive objects on the entire upper deck, no matter how you protect them, everything is in plain sight, and the only dent on the deck will make it 100% unbreakable

                A modern submarine will tear a battleship, and an aircraft carrier will have to be dragged to provide anti-submarine protection.
                1. Santa Fe
                  4 August 2015 21: 38
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Modern submarine will break the battleship

                  The nuclear submarines are an order of magnitude smaller than any Mirages and F-16 with harpoons
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  to carry an aircraft carrier to provide anti-submarine protection.

                  what side the aircraft carrier to the PLO

                  on the armored cruiser is
                  a) podkilny HAS and low-frequency towed antenna
                  b) ASROK (or anti-submarine caliber)
                  c) RBU or Mk.32 ASW
                  d) a pair of helicopter

                  fuck him ballast in the form of an air waffle
              2. tlauicol
                tlauicol 4 August 2015 12: 37
                +1
                It remains only to come "for a shot." What will you crush? Do you have a hammer with a 1000km handle? And AB has
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 4 August 2015 14: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  . "What will you crush?

                  If this is for me, then I offered to tear and not mash.
                  Let's not be modest, "Seawulf".
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 4 August 2015 15: 49
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    And AB has

                    What I'm trying to say, I’ll have to put AB to the battleship
                2. Santa Fe
                  4 August 2015 21: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Do you have a hammer with a handle in 1000km?

                  1600 KM - Ax
                  2000 km - Caliber

                  Do you have missile defense systems?

                  Who will protect the convoy from low-altitude anti-ship missiles?

                  anti-submarine functions?

                  900 large-caliber shots (by weight - the equivalent of 113 kg SDB. How many strike games and how long it takes)
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 5 August 2015 05: 17
                    0
                    Ax Caliber crumple the deck? You do not have a long-handled hammer against AB
                3. Olezhek
                  Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 41
                  0
                  You see, for example, a URO cruiser can fire these missiles in batches
                  even on 400 km
                  And these rockets are pieces of iron - they are not sorry.
                  As shells GK
                  "a hammer with a handle 1000 km" are fragile vulnerable cars with living people inside
                  They will break through to the cruiser at a distance of confident defeat, they will not break through - another question.
                  Once again - modern pilots are not kamikazes
          2. srelock
            srelock 6 August 2015 03: 58
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It is not necessary
            127 mm optimum (differentiated)
            + 1000 tons of shatterproof bulkheads
            all skeptics - Queen Elizabeth and his articles load (1915 year)

            Why exactly 127mm? What is such armor supposed to be against?
            Any relatively thin-walled steel structure can perform anti-fragmentation functions and in case of penetration, it will not give a significant number of fragments, but it is better to use something easier.
            And here "Queen Elizabeth"? A modern ship has a completely different tonnage distribution.
        2. yehat
          yehat 13 August 2015 13: 32
          0
          Do we have a really working "unified automated system", and not its imitation?
      3. Roman 11
        Roman 11 3 August 2015 18: 06
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        All facts cited indicate otherwise.

        What kind? From the history of WWII? Look at the calendar - 70 years have passed! Then at the end of the war only a heavy guided weapon appeared. And now there’s no smart weapon, with different trajectories of destruction, charges. And last year’s story with poor fellow Cook - they disconnected from the outlet and giggled at him for 1,5 hours, an ordinary piece of iron ...... All this was not in WWII. Therefore, victory in the next war will be on the side of the one who will be stupid most, + an umbrella. And the thickness of the sides, decks and their architecture will not play a significant role, because in the conditions of a smart and high-precision war there will be no place to repair battered giant ships, since the docks, repair shops and the entire port infrastructure will be destroyed by constant missile and air strikes.
    2. Olezhek
      Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 34
      0
      The shape of the modern battleship (or armored cruiser URO) will certainly be different.
  7. tasha
    tasha 3 August 2015 07: 49
    +4
    "All the legends about the" Fritz "and" plywood shelves "who allegedly changed the alignment of forces at sea and devalued capital ships are the slogans of" sofa experts "who are too lazy to open the book and get acquainted with the statistics of combat damage of WWII ships."

    Serious application. This is not to mind?

    Dear author, now let's compare the cost of building / maintaining a battleship and the cost of a bundle "plywood shelf" + torpedo.
    1. 6 inches
      6 inches 3 August 2015 08: 02
      +2
      You forgot to add the carrier to the bunch. The bookcase + the aircraft carrier is already coming out at a price.
      1. tasha
        tasha 3 August 2015 10: 31
        0
        Possible.
        I did not add an aircraft carrier, because it wasn’t always exactly \ carrier aircraft that took part in the destruction of the LC.
        1. Santa Fe
          3 August 2015 10: 44
          0
          Quote: tasha
          it’s not always exactly aircraft carriers that took part in the destruction of the LC.

          Shelves flew only with aircraft carriers
          1. tasha
            tasha 3 August 2015 11: 25
            +1
            During Operation Cerberus, 825 Squadron took off from land.
            Does it change anything?
            1. Santa Fe
              4 August 2015 09: 14
              0
              Quote: tasha
              Does it change anything?

              They were able to drown someone (damage)?
              1. tasha
                tasha 5 August 2015 13: 29
                0
                I did not expect such a question from you, honestly.
  8. Magic archer
    Magic archer 3 August 2015 08: 32
    +5
    I recognize Oleg wink how passionately he defends his ideas! This alone deserves respect! But still I am an opponent of battleships. if they continued to build after the Second World War, then most likely the first pkr and torpedoes would carry apples for which the thickness of the battleship’s armored belt would not play any role. Regards, MA hi
    1. 6 inches
      6 inches 3 August 2015 17: 19
      +1
      Well, there’s a nuclear weapon. Does anyone use it? But there are aircraft carriers, aren’t they scared?
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 18: 28
      0
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I recognize Oleg how passionately he defends his ideas!

      If there is any benefit from armor and other old prejudices, then in one thing is the protection of the crew, at least some, but for this you need a bunch of boats and other rescue equipment, so that the survivors can somehow count on something, if you look now at parity. Well then, it’s worth thinking about the technology of super-armored capsules as in Armata, and still you can’t do without boats. )
  9. Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 August 2015 10: 34
    +1
    It can of course be booked and good, but a quantitative question. Germany barely mastered two superlinkors, Japan too, Great Britain a little more, only the United States was able to relatively mass construction, but in any case, enough fingers to count them.
    It is doubtful that the United States would be able to provide its fleet with neolinkors in the amount corresponding to their needs (and judging by the series of Berks they are very large), and here you need to make a choice ...
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 10: 54
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      its fleet of neolinkors

      highly protected cruisers in / and 20-25 thousand tons
      besides, everyone could carry weapons like three Burke
      with incomparable combat stability
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Germany barely mastered two superlinkors

      Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau
      + pickpockets (Deutschland, Sheer, Spee)

      despite the fact that Bismarck was really cool for his time. the strongest ship of the Atlantic
      Quote: Mera Joota
      only the US was able to relatively mass construction

      2- North. Caroline
      4- South Dakota
      4- Iowa
      2- Alaska
      14- TKR Baltimore
      10- TKR based on Baltimore (Oregons, Demoines, etc.)
      Quote: Mera Joota
      in the amount corresponding to their needs (and judging by the series of Berks they are very large)

      Well, why do we need 60 tubs that die on the first fire contact with the enemy (examples are in the comments, a little higher).

      It is cheaper to pay compensation to the families of the victims (300 x 1 million = 300 million!)

      The missile destroyer Ingersoll hooked on the anchor of a passing tanker. The super ship opened like a tin can!
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 August 2015 11: 32
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Well, why do we need 60 tubs that die at the first fire contact with the enemy

        Come on, right away they will die in terrible convulsions ... In the world there is nothing even close to US NAVY in quantity and quality. Not to mention situational awareness that intelligence is provided. aviation and satellite constellation. The probability that a group of ships will come under a sudden blow is very low. Possible luck from a sudden strike will result in the beating of a daredevil fleet and the destruction of all its bases.
        Now China is trying to compete with the Americans quantitatively, if they try to improve quality by booking, then the number will drop sharply ... As a result, it makes no sense for the Americans to sculpt neolincors, there are simply no opponents for the sake of ...
        1. Santa Fe
          3 August 2015 12: 07
          +1
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Not to mention situational awareness that intelligence is provided. aviation and satellite constellation. The probability that a group of ships will come under a sudden blow is very low.

          Stark
          Cole

          this despite the fact that no one seriously fought with the Yankees, so they joked a couple of times
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 August 2015 13: 11
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Cole

            So for the sake of terrorists, it is more than reckless to make the Neolinkors. Well, they managed to damage the warship once in X years, this is not a systemic problem. Well, the fate of Stark is also not typical of the entire naval structure of the US Navy. If they received such surprises once a year, then it was worth thinking, and so ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            this despite the fact that no one seriously fought with the Yankees, so they joked a couple of times

            And they won’t, for they understand that the force is real.
          2. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 August 2015 13: 11
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Cole

            So for the sake of terrorists, it is more than reckless to make the Neolinkors. Well, they managed to damage the warship once in X years, this is not a systemic problem. Well, the fate of Stark is also not typical of the entire naval structure of the US Navy. If they received such surprises once a year, then it was worth thinking, and so ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            this despite the fact that no one seriously fought with the Yankees, so they joked a couple of times

            And they won’t, for they understand that the force is real.
            1. Santa Fe
              4 August 2015 09: 18
              +1
              Quote: Mera Joota
              So for the sake of terrorists to fence neolinkors is more than reckless

              The attack showed what a modern ship is worth
              one explosion outside, OVER water - destroyer in the trash, 20% of the crew in the trash
              Quote: Mera Joota
              And they won’t, for they understand that the force is real

              Russia is not the USA
        2. Olezhek
          Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 44
          0
          Colleagues - the situation on the planet is changing - the United States no longer pulls the "superflot"
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 August 2015 11: 32
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Well, why do we need 60 tubs that die at the first fire contact with the enemy

        Come on, right away they will die in terrible convulsions ... In the world there is nothing even close to US NAVY in quantity and quality. Not to mention situational awareness that intelligence is provided. aviation and satellite constellation. The probability that a group of ships will come under a sudden blow is very low. Possible luck from a sudden strike will result in the beating of a daredevil fleet and the destruction of all its bases.
        Now China is trying to compete with the Americans quantitatively, if they try to improve quality by booking, then the number will drop sharply ... As a result, it makes no sense for the Americans to sculpt neolincors, there are simply no opponents for the sake of ...
    2. Saladine
      Saladine 3 August 2015 11: 17
      -1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Germany barely mastered two superlinkors


      These were nedolinkory.
  10. tomket
    tomket 3 August 2015 11: 27
    +2
    Oleg - minus the machine gun immediately after you write about the number of shells FIRED and about the melted Bismarck. And what do you think they all hit the target? Keep on doing fact manipulation.
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 12: 10
      0
      Quote: tomket
      about the number of shells RELEASED and about the reflowed "Bismarck". And what do you think they all hit the target?

      Man is given such an organ as the brain
      analyze and compare facts, and draw the right conclusions

      You are given the source data - 2500 shots. How many of them hit the target? 10% minimum, the fight was a short distance

      200 ... 250 hits !!!

      Was it difficult for yourself?
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 3 August 2015 12: 22
        +1
        Oh, these visionaries. Than stupid to invent it would be better to look for information.
        http://f-picture.net/fp/b50801b4aef84d1c917ba9cc6b159077

        http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4518
        406mm rounds from "Rodney" - 12 pieces.
        356mm rounds from Prince of Wales and King - 8 pieces.
        203mm rounds from Dorsetshire - 1 piece.
        shells of unknown caliber - 8 pieces.
        universal artillery shells and bullets from aircraft - a certain number, but it seems that a lot.

        457mm torpedoes with Sworfidsha - 4 pieces.
        533mm torpedoes from Dorsetshire - 3 pieces.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 August 2015 09: 25
          0
          Quote: strannik1985
          406mm rounds from "Rodney" - 12 pieces.
          356mm rounds from Prince of Wales and King - 8 pieces.
          203mm rounds from Dorsetshire - 1 piece.
          shells of unknown caliber - 8 pieces.

          Even if it were true - 12 solid-tonnage masses per ton at 2,5 sound speeds (he shot with 40 cable), equivalent of 12 granite !!! + tueva cloud of other shells and torpedoes
          and he kept on pavu, most of the crew was alive at that moment, the move remained
          Quote: strannik1985
          203mm rounds from Dorsetshire - 1 piece.

          lies

          shot almost point blank, with 0,1% success
          contrary to the whole history and practice of battles at sea
          even with tsushima there was a couple of percent
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 4 August 2015 12: 47
            0
            1. If you accuse of lying, take the trouble to bring your sources.
            2. What is equivalent? Projectile weight 406 mm-929 kg, armor-piercing explosives 23,2 kg, initial velocity-788-797 m / s. In Granite, the weight of one warhead is almost equal to the weight of the projectile, the speed when meeting a target is two times higher than the initial projectile. Are you tired of talking nonsense?
            1. 6 inches
              6 inches 4 August 2015 16: 13
              0
              weight mark 5 1016. weight mark 8-1225 kg
  11. tomket
    tomket 3 August 2015 11: 34
    +1
    In general, it would be strange to expect any other results from such machines as "Yamato", "Musashi" and "Shinano" for 70 thousand tons. Was it worthwhile then to fence a garden if they would not survive a couple of torpedoes?
    1. Santa Fe
      3 August 2015 12: 11
      0
      Quote: tomket
      from such engines as "Yamato", "Musashi" and "Shinano" for 70 thousand tons, some other results. It was worth then to fence a garden if they a couple of torpedoes would not survive?

      six torpedoes - all on one side!

      the course and ammunition remained intact, there is no threat of death, the roll is done
      1. tomket
        tomket 3 August 2015 13: 34
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        six torpedoes - all on one side!

        the course and ammunition remained intact, there is no threat of death, the roll is done

        I'm talking about the displacement. Launch 6 torpedoes at the Nimitz, or even ten, the result will be the same.
        1. Roman 11
          Roman 11 3 August 2015 18: 56
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          Launch 6 torpedoes at the Nimitz, or even ten, the result will be the same.

          He has no armored belt, 2 for him as 6 for Musashi.
  12. strannik1985
    strannik1985 3 August 2015 12: 06
    +1
    [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] [quote = Wedmak]
    Article - about WWII ships, refutation of famous prejudices
    stories about capital ships of the past are a hymn to fantastic military stability. This is the standard. You need to strive for it, using existing technologies (this will allow you to create a highly protected missile cruiser with / and 20-25 thousand tons, with security like that of Queen Elizabeth + optimization of protection for the threats of modern times).

    Pentagon Project Capital Surface Warship (represented by office of force trancformation in 2007)[/ Quote]

    The standard of the Second World War. "During the journey the dog managed to grow slightly."
    A priori, we think shipbuilders / sailors around the world are idiots? Not too much?
    RCCs with an inert warhead pierced the booking of ships without any problems during testing back in the 50s and 60s, is it worth starting a competition in which the rocket will initially have more opportunities?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 August 2015 12: 37
      +1
      That's just the air defense of the ships is by no means anti-aircraft.
    2. 6 inches
      6 inches 3 August 2015 17: 25
      0
      What is it like? we mean armor-piercing blank into a rocket and penetrate some 300 mm of armor? huh? then why do anti-missiles and artillery machines have fragmentation warheads? that is, means a 30mm shot with shrapnel knocks a missile — and it’s piercing 300mm of armor for you? It happens. Take a tennis racket and beat her bullets. And I'll see ..
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 August 2015 19: 17
        +1
        Quote: 6 inches
        What is it like? we mean armor-piercing blank into a rocket and penetrate some 300 mm of armor? huh? then why do anti-missiles and artillery machines have fragmentation warheads? that is, means a 30mm shot with shrapnel knocks a missile — and it’s piercing 300mm of armor for you? It happens. Take a tennis racket and beat her bullets. And I'll see ..

        Do not confuse glider damage with warhead damage. To defeat RCC, there are 2 zones.

        In the first of them (further 2 km from the ship) SAM and ZAK of caliber over 40 mm ensure the defeat of the anti-ship missile glider, after which a controlled flight of the anti-ship missile system becomes impossible and it leaves the course (or, better, "dives"). Unfortunately, the operation of ZAKs of caliber less than 40 mm in this zone is ineffective - they simply do not have time to "saturate" the anti-ship missile glider with hits in an amount sufficient to destroy it.

        In the second zone (closer than 2 km from the ship) ZAK 20-35 mm can already work (as well as the 40 mm ZAK - changing the type of ammunition). In this zone ZAK work armored-piercing warheads in the Kyrgyz Republic. And the main task is to undermine the warhead with a direct hit, since at such distances the glider’s defeat is inefficient, since the anti-ship missiles may not have time to dive and still get into the ship. Therefore, when working at a distance of less than 2 km, the only way to guarantee the defeat of RCC is by warhead detonation.

        Thus, against the "kinetic anti-ship missiles" will be effective only air defense systems and artillery systems 57-76 mm. The fact is that the speed of these anti-ship missiles when approaching the target will be high, so that the distance of a safe defeat of the glider will move 3-5 kilometers (even for 40-mm it will be at the limit). And to make a blank or an armor-piercing warhead detonate with its thick forehead is unrealistic.
        1. 6 inches
          6 inches 3 August 2015 19: 28
          0
          Is 76 mm suitable? And for example, tanks have active armor-helps. Structurally, the Harpoon rocket consists of four compartments, in the head or instrument compartment of AN / DSQ-44 there is guidance system equipment, followed by the warhead compartment designated WAU-3 (V) / B, the main engine compartment A / B44G-1 and the tail compartment. There is control in the head .... and the weight of the warhead is 220 kg. For comparison, the 406 Iowa projectile weighed 1225 kg. As they say, feel the difference ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 August 2015 10: 41
            0
            Quote: 6 inches
            . Structurally, the Harpoon rocket consists of four compartments, in the head or instrument compartment of AN / DSQ-44 the guidance system equipment is located, followed by the warhead compartment, designated WAU-3 (V) / B, and the main engine compartment A / B44G- 1 and the tail compartment. So in the head is the control .... and the weight of the warhead 220kg.

            "Harpoon" is a product of the era when the main and only striking force of the fleet were AUG and AV in their composition. Cheap mass universal rocket.
            Now the Yankees have returned to the concept of strike ships and are sawing all sorts of LRASM under it.
            1. 6 inches
              6 inches 4 August 2015 16: 16
              +1
              So what? Is the control unit now at the back? I'm not saying that the ship is invulnerable. It’s important that the armored vehicle is more resistant to damage. And missiles such as harpoon exoset and others of this class will cause minimal damage. It’s cheap, that's why it’s massive, heavy and expensive afford it. and not every ship can carry it ..
        2. 6 inches
          6 inches 3 August 2015 19: 30
          0
          and no offense, but the disc does not detonate.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 August 2015 10: 34
            0
            Quote: 6 inches
            and no offense, but the disc does not detonate.

            I know.
            I just remembered one replay of the RJV from the IHSh, during which solid armor-piercing shells detonated in the cellar of the old Japanese battleship. smile
            1. 6 inches
              6 inches 4 August 2015 16: 17
              0
              Well .. it’s probably ... in parallel reality.
    3. 6 inches
      6 inches 3 August 2015 18: 22
      0
      that's right. there’s nothing to put back; put a minus. for the future, try to disperse a chicken egg to supersonic and imprint it in armor. this will happen with your rocket.
    4. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 19: 24
      0
      Quote: strannik1985
      Warheads pierced the reservation of ships without any problems during testing back in the 50-60s

      There, in fact, the weakness of vertical armor, as in the case of Roma in 1943. Honestly, Roma went to the bottom more accidentally than naturally - remember, there was a fire in the Moscow region, it was not put out, and then the cellar with gunpowder. By the way Fuji under Tsushima it was much more dangerous, there was a fire in the GK tower and at any moment he could jump to heaven, but the amazing thing was that the fragment broke the hydraulics and the fire died out. In short, we must carefully deal with Roma why the fire was not extinguished, what scale it was, maybe the crew was so demoralized by the upcoming internment that the fight against fire was of little interest to him, maybe there was nobody left who could resist, etc. We need a complete picture for the conclusions, because can also detanate at the base, as recently the submarine of India. P.S. And still, this does not change the essence, they will teach rockets to hit in the bottoms and wherever you want .......
      1. 6 inches
        6 inches 3 August 2015 19: 31
        +2
        that there will understand .. well, the Italians did not want to fight. and so there is no ship and figs with it.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 3 August 2015 19: 41
        0
        I'm talking about the tests of anti-ship missiles in the 50-60s, incl. on the building of the TKR "Stalingrad".
  13. Denimax
    Denimax 3 August 2015 12: 13
    +2
    The conclusion is obvious: even the use of guided bombs did not guarantee victory in naval combat.
    So they have fuses of the wrong system.) If the bombs worked properly, then Littorio and Worspite would have suffered the fate of Roma. And just a few bombs are very low costs for sinking a battleship.
  14. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 August 2015 13: 15
    0
    The harsh truth was that the “shelf” did not always stoke the battleships. Moreover, she often could not catch up with them!
    In March 1942, two squadrons of the “Albacor” (817th and 832th squadrons) from the aircraft carrier “Victories” tried to attack a single “Tirpitz”. The attack was carried out at the stern corners, as the least dangerous from the point of view of anti-aircraft fire, as a result, the speed of approach of the “whatnots” with the battleship was only 30 knots - less than the torpedo boats! Having fallen under hurricane anti-aircraft fire, the British could not attack such a fast-moving maneuvering ship. All 24 fired torpedoes passed the target.

    There is an even more amusing example - from the Mediterranean.
    The first shock wave of 11 torpedo bombers of the 810th squadron rose from the Arc Royal at 11.30, but it took them an hour to overtake the enemy. This is not surprising when you consider that the Swordfish with a torpedo developed about 80 knots, and the strong headwind and swiftness with which the Italians left the battlefield reduced the speed of approach by half.

    Torpedo bomber approaching the target at 40 knots! And this despite the fact that the main task of AB RN is to get to the enemy squadron as soon as possible and reduce the enemy’s LC speed with torpedo strikes, so that imperial slows were able to catch them. smile
  15. brn521
    brn521 3 August 2015 13: 28
    +2
    All the legends about the “Fritz” and the “plywood shelves” that supposedly changed the balance of power at sea and depreciated the capital ships are the slogans of the “couch experts”

    Well, yes, but what about the article then? Hefty expensive ships, in which to invest like to build a small city. Or a factory. Or something else useful. And then the "plywood shelf" arrives and drops the "Fritz" on this case. The ship didn't sink? It doesn’t matter, 10 more "plywood shelves" will arrive and drop another "Fritz". It turns out that the cost of not one city was invested in the ship, but two or three, and the "Fritzes" do not help? It doesn't matter, there is some "Fritz-XI" who can master. Since it is much faster and cheaper to develop, rivet and deliver new ammunition to the target than to develop, build and upgrade ships, especially those that are well armored and with a complex structure. And now we see the result, the "non-sofa" experts from the reservation eventually refused.
    Moreover, in the general classification, the armor has long lost. Change the type of explosives to tactical nuclear charges and immediately a completely different picture will turn out. Reaching the target, RCC, instead of a chance, will begin to give a 100% guarantee, regardless of the type of reservation, structure, investments and other things.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 19: 52
      0
      Quote: brn521
      Change the type of explosives to tactical nuclear charges and immediately a completely different picture will turn out.

      It's too simple, give at least a chance to torment))
    2. Olezhek
      Olezhek 9 August 2015 14: 50
      0
      TNW is like a completely different story ...
  16. alovrov
    alovrov 3 August 2015 13: 30
    +7
    Again the same thing as a barrel organ. He withstood ... eleven hits, repelled ... a raid - he stayed afloat, went to be repaired. What problem did you solve? Reduced enemy ammunition? Gained eternal glory and glorified for centuries, amen ???
    The topic is about what combat missions NOW battleships could solve BETTER AND CHEAPER of other military assets unsolved. The childish enthusiasm is understandable, of course, but somehow it does not inspire.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 19: 57
      +1
      Quote: alovrov
      The childish enthusiasm is understandable, of course, but somehow it does not inspire.

      It inspires, and even very much, the crew survives more.
  17. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 August 2015 14: 05
    0
    Single torpedo hits could not pose a mortal threat to World War II cruisers and battleships.

    "Pennsylvania", the night of August 12-13, 1945. 1 aircraft torpedo. As a result, the aft end sank into the water to the upper deck, 2 ACCs had to be connected to the BZZh, and the LK itself had to be towed in shallow water. 2 days of rescue work, 2 days of repair and restoration. And on August 18, the LK was pulled from Okinawa to Guam by three tugs. There LK was patched up in the dock - and sent to Metropolis. On the way, the LK had to drift several times to eliminate leaks and cut the jammed shaft. Only on October 24, 1945, the LC reached the Puget Sound Navy Yard shipyard, having only 1 working shaft.
    Now let’s imagine that a torpedo would hit the LK not at the anchor station protected from waves and wind with ACC ships based there, but at sea.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 20: 03
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Now let’s imagine that a torpedo would hit the LK not at the anchor station protected from waves and wind with ACC ships based there, but at sea.

      This is all the history of the Ancient World, then they did not know that it would be possible to photograph from space sometime. The struggle for vitality today is another.
  18. Banson
    Banson 3 August 2015 14: 09
    +2
    Battleships of the late period were not “absolute weapons”. Moreover, in a certain period (before the appearance of anti-aircraft missiles), the likelihood of their death from the effects of high-tech aviation ammunition increased. But it was just PROBABILITY.

    This is not a matter of death, but simply of the impossibility of completing a combat mission with this too large and expensive ship. The huge size has both advantages and, alas, fatal disadvantages. The main one is the high cost and scarcity as a result. Well, it was impossible to "Bismarck" or "Soviet Union" rivet like a T-34 tank. And you can build a maximum of one or two. And these one or two monsters, even standing in the port, cost a certain amount of millen dollars every day. Chained to themselves all attention enemy (there are only two of them). The enemy naturally becomes aware of any of their steps. And the enemy using asymmetric measures, which are much cheaper as a rule (the same naval aviation for example), simply does not give them a step to step on. Drown them or not? Sometimes they drown or not, but it doesn’t matter. The main thing is that they do not allow the battleship to fulfill the combat mission, hanging it with a heavy and useless burden on the country's economy. He went to sea - bam, bam. Repair four months. He went to sea again - bam, bam - again for months of repairs. And so on until they sink, or until he even stops trying to go to sea. Anyway - there is one giant battleship - and there are dozens of places where it is needed. All these factors ultimately led to the death of the class of battleships themselves and the mass construction of ships of other classes instead of them: cruisers, destroyers, etc. These ships have a bunch of shortcomings, but cheaper and massive and therefore suitable for use in real databases. But one moment was missed. There were many subclasses in the class of battleships. There is such a very good class of battleships - called squadron battleship. The same battleship, but with a displacement of 13-15 000t. Suitable for mass production and creation armad battleships (instead of cruisers and destroyers). In the three main combat qualities of a squadron battleship (firepower, protection and mobility), the emphasis is on the first two. Not very large, but extremely powerful and versatile ships. Capable of "holding" bombs and torpedoes. Now, if everyone had not rushed to build these idiotic dreadnoughts, but would have continued to maintain armadas, then the battleships would not have disappeared to this day. However, it is never too late to return to them.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 August 2015 14: 35
      0
      Quote: Banson
      There is such a very good class of battleships - it is called a squadron battleship. The same battleship, but with a displacement of 13-15 tons. Suitable for mass production and creation of armada battleships (instead of cruisers and destroyers). In the three main combat qualities of a squadron battleship (firepower, protection and mobility), the emphasis is on the first two. Not very large, but extremely powerful and versatile ships. Capable of "holding" both bombs and torpedoes

      Oh yes ... the British EDB at Daradannell showed all the resistance of ships of this class to underwater explosions. smile

      Kamrad, the depth of the technical standard of the American standard battleship - from 7,5 to 9 m. Can you provide this on the EDB? And what will be his displacement?

      And most importantly, what tasks will your EBR solve? Fire support DESO - here you need protection from mines and torpedoes. Fight with the enemy's LC? It rolled while the LK carried guns of the same class as the EBR (280-mm "Gebena" versus the 305-mm EBR of the Black Sea Fleet). For LK with 356-380-406 mm EBR will be a training target. And if you want to place "battleship" guns on the EBR, then this is again an increase in displacement. Air defense squadron and protection of AB from enemy surface ships? With a maximum speed of 20-22 knots, it's not even funny.
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 20: 14
      -1
      Quote: Banson
      However, it is never too late to return to them.

      With armadillos busting ....... Maybe then immediately to the wooden synopers? )) And what, also pluses - RCC will not find, the radar will not see ......
      1. yehat
        yehat 13 August 2015 13: 41
        0
        the same Germans, members of Jutland, were not at all eager to greatly increase the fleet of battleships. They approached World War I with the almost maximum dreadnought fleet she needed. The battleship should be part of the core of the fleet, but not a large-scale ship.
    3. yehat
      yehat 13 August 2015 13: 38
      0
      I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It is easy to refute your layouts of effectiveness, having cited the results of only one battle, when a German ship of the Deutschland class scattered several English ships at once, having an advantage as artillery, which was of the dreadnought level. All these armadas are very vulnerable to ships that are noticeably superior to artillery. Take at least the classic English Rivenge. Yes, he will deal with one with any 2 squadron battleships.
  19. Taoist
    Taoist 3 August 2015 15: 29
    +5
    For what I love our Oleg Kaptsov ... so it is for "obstinacy". With the persistence of the surf and the fanaticism of a neophyte, he will stubbornly sharpen the "rock of general skepticism" ... ;-)

    "I believe because it is absurd" (c)

    It's time to write "Battleship Catechesis" ... So I give an idea. Like any sect, there are a lot of fans. wassat
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 3 August 2015 15: 35
    +2
    Yes, by the way, I am really interested in such a moment that is always overlooked ... But what should these "new battleships" do? Fight a classic line-up fight? So with whom may I ask? With aviation and anti-ship missiles? So they don't want to line up in a wake column ... ;-)
    To portray "stationers" in foreign waters? So that very expensive gunboats turn out ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 August 2015 16: 53
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      Yes, by the way, I am really interested in such a moment that is always overlooked ... But what should these "new battleships" do? Fight a classic line-up fight? So with whom may I ask? With aviation and anti-ship missiles? So they don't want to line up in a wake column ... ;-)

      Most likely, as always, to do the favorite thing of our admirals - to strike the CD DD at the AUG. Thus, translating the notorious "Doomsday Clock" to 12:00.

      Generally, at the sight of these ships and huge plans I immediately remember Sobolev's First Listener.
      The naval minds, having entered the academy, blinked their eyes: from the bitter reality of the Russian fleet barely getting up on its feet, they were miraculously transferred to the fabulous kingdom of the triumphant doctrine of "ownership of the sea." Here, at the academy, the seas gravitating towards Russia have already been conquered. Black and Baltic, in a necklace of first-class ports and sea fortresses, swarmed with dreadnoughts, cruisers (linear, armored and light), flocks of destroyers scoured the Russian seas, asking if anyone had poked their nose out where the Andreev flag reigns, which is "inseparable owned "even the Pacific Ocean (where in fact there were barely a dozen lousy numbered destroyers that survived the Japanese defeat). It was a heated dream of young Russia, a fantastic parade of shipbuilding programs, for the implementation of which the naval ministry was only begging for money from the avaricious State Duma. The fleet that owned the seas had not even been laid down yet, but in the naval wars, played out on cards in the academy classrooms, where operations were developed, grandiose in scope, it was already shaking the oceans. This was called the "naval game". It would be more correct to call it a children's game of boats.

      Enchanted by this picture, students finished the course, forever poisoned by the hypertrophy of theoretical thought. In the intoxicating air of this factory of victories, sobriety was kept by a few - who knew too well in their own skin all the bitter truth of reality.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 3 August 2015 17: 48
        +2
        Yes ... as I present the "Kaptsovski fleet" so immediately some apocalyptic pictures in the spirit of "steampunk" arise ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 3 August 2015 18: 53
          0
          In the future, they will most likely return to battleships as a very powerful and stable combat unit, only it will be a fundamentally new ship, with an atomic power plant, electromagnetic ultra-long-range guns capable of firing not only shells, but also missiles, which has a powerful air defense and strike weapon system in the form of hypersonic missiles.
          1. yehat
            yehat 13 August 2015 13: 46
            0
            already coming back. Now there is already the concept of ships - arsenals.
            Its implementation will be followed by attempts to defend them more thoroughly.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Roman 11
        Roman 11 3 August 2015 20: 41
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In general, when these ships and plans are huge

        All this funny nonsense, although there is sound benefit, from the fact that we have nothing to cover the last 2 historical humiliating z.adnitsy (I apologize for the expression) - when approaching Tsushima and leaving Tallinn. And forward, no matter how you look, the 3rd appears, until ..
    2. 6 inches
      6 inches 3 August 2015 17: 34
      0
      fundamentally wrong idea. the task is to call the battleship now-work along the shore. For reference, 80pr big cities of the world are on the coast. Here is his task for today.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 3 August 2015 17: 43
        0
        I hesitate to ask ... but who will let him to the shore ...? Not the Papuans, of course, will let you ... but to the "big cities of the world" How will this armored pelvis "spit" from the mobile soil complexes? Today it is not the "Dardanelles" operation ... and even there the "battleships" did not go well ... soldier
        1. 6 inches
          6 inches 3 August 2015 18: 18
          +1
          Well, I wouldn’t compare it with the Dardanelles. It wasn’t wrong with the armadillos, but let’s say that the command didn’t have something in their head. Moving ground systems? Are they invulnerable? How will modern ships fight off the PCB and it will beat off. Intelligence Defense detection by missile attacks Then we approach the shore and process it with artillery. For the fleet, what about landing ships? They’re definitely not breaking off the coastal ships, but they are being built.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 August 2015 18: 35
            0
            Quote: 6 inches
            reconnaissance revealing defense missile strike. then we approach the shore and

            ... and we get a volley of coastal missiles with armor-piercing warheads (warheads + booster stage).
            I don’t know how in BO, but in air defense, false positions, imitators, standby means to work without opening the entire system () and "ambush" divisions sitting until the last without airing are the norm for an air defense system (at least in theory).

            Or, even worse - after approaching the shore, we begin to receive gifts from the coastal "Msta" that has crawled out of its shelter - first, cassette with fragmentation elements along the antennas, and then corrected ones - through the superstructure to the deck.
            1. 6 inches
              6 inches 3 August 2015 18: 44
              +1
              all of the above is also true with regard to landing. but no one is canceling landing ships? and why? it means that not everything is so rosy. and by the way, the firing range on the MST was even controlled 25 km. and the old Amer 406-up to 40 threw. so that they may be lacking. and for the PCR there are artillery guns and also jamming. plus armored protection. and still before to approach the coast, the defense is opened. There are few idiots who can get into the impudent one. And by the way, yes, how many countries can afford such coastal defense?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 August 2015 18: 56
                0
                Quote: 6 inches
                all of the above is also true with regard to landing. but no one is canceling landing ships? and why?

                That is precisely why the normal fleets abandoned the traditional a-la WWII BDKs with the landing method by the ashore method - and, if possible, switch to DVKD and UDK. Just in order to remove the base landing ship as far from the coast as possible - to minimize the list of air defense assets that can operate on it, and increase the depth of the air defense zone from the coast to work on coastal anti-ship missiles. Plus, to maximize the spraying of enemy fire, to reduce the time of firing and to reduce losses in case of damage to a single craft, the landing is carried out on high-speed boats and helicopters.
                Quote: 6 inches
                and for the PCR there is a Zur artillery guns and also jamming. Plus armored protection. And yet, before approaching the shore, the defense is opened. There are few idiots to climb into the impudent.

                Ja, ja ... Dieppe, Tarawa, Okinawa. Operation Cottage and the Singapore Airborne Troopers in 1945 are generally the finish line.
                1. 6 inches
                  6 inches 3 August 2015 19: 05
                  +1
                  Well, the ships are not to blame for this. and landing on high-speed boats and helicopters is just against the Papuans. they simply will not succeed in pulling the coastal artillery to the landing site. But seriously, the range of coastal complexes is an average of 150 kilometers. There and back 300. Plus time for loading. how long does it take to land assault helicopters? I don’t see them; they don’t drag heavy equipment. So it turns out that there’s nothing to work in modern fleets along the coast unless there is absolutely no coastal defense.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 August 2015 18: 19
        0
        Quote: 6 inches
        fundamentally wrong idea. the task is to call the battleship now-work along the shore. For reference, 80pr big cities of the world are on the coast. Here is his task for today.

        Gunboat Policy in a new way? Then why does he need armor?

        Those states, against the cities of which, for political reasons, the use of this LC is permissible, do not have the means to defeat it, even in the unarmored version.
        And those states whose reservation is necessary against coastal defense may also crash in response to special warheads.
        1. 6 inches
          6 inches 3 August 2015 18: 29
          0
          are you dropping offshore artillery? in vain. surely everyone has 152-203 mm barrels in armament. Without armor it will be fraught. And if the enemy is less likely to calculate options, then they can also buy guided shells. And it’s harder to shoot them down than PCR.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 August 2015 18: 47
            0
            Quote: 6 inches
            are you dropping offshore artillery? in vain. surely everyone has 152-203 mm barrels in service. Without armor it will be fraught.

            As I understand it, the article is about booking rocket ships. Which work outside the effective artillery fire zone of the BO.
            1. 6 inches
              6 inches 3 August 2015 18: 50
              0
              no. it's not purely rocket. let's say rockets for defense and important purposes. but the trenches and pillboxes to plow are better suited for this gun. they’re cheap and cheerful. and the armor will still be spit at it because of everything. it’s a pity that the ship will lose because of a pair of three land-howitzer shells.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 August 2015 19: 03
                0
                Quote: 6 inches
                no. it's not purely rocket. let's say rockets for defense and important purposes. but the trenches and pillboxes to plow-for this guns are better suited. and cheap and cheerful

                Uh-huh ... this "cheap and cheerful" has already been tried in "Desert Storm". As soon as the Missouri approached the shore, two P-15s were immediately launched on it. With all the air supremacy of the Coalition Air Force and the suppression of the Iraqi BO.

                And if it weren’t for the P-15s, which were already obsolete by 1973 (the well-known story of the withdrawal of the Israeli E-P-15 Egyptian electronic warfare), but something newer, resistant to electronic warfare?
                1. 6 inches
                  6 inches 3 August 2015 19: 09
                  0
                  yes it’s all so .. but if for example we assume that it’s not Missouri? and the ship is already modern? and by the way 2. and after all, for this purpose it was possible and necessary to bring down the division? then the division hasn’t been there yet. So we are returning to suppressing the defense .. by the way, they have not reached.
  21. RussKamikadZE
    RussKamikadZE 3 August 2015 16: 56
    -6
    Ban this fanatic already! Tired of his nonsense to read! IN is not a place for fairy tales and delirium, but a military resource (at least before it was).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 August 2015 17: 09
      0
      Quote: RussKamikadZE
      Ban this fanatic already! Tired of his nonsense to read! IN is not a place for fairy tales and delirium, but a military resource (at least before it was).

      Come on you. The main thing in Kaptsov’s articles is not the article itself, but comments on it. smile
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 3 August 2015 17: 39
        0
        Not ... the article itself also "inserts" ... I'm just waiting for the next masterpiece of "military historical thought" Although. Can addiction come? wassat
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 August 2015 17: 41
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          Not ... the article itself also "inserts" ... I'm just waiting for the next masterpiece of "military historical thought" Although. Can addiction come?

          And here I am sitting, a pure zombie, at the damned screen.
          If I lose even a day of movies or news,
          My breakdown will begin worse than that of an addict.
          Give a dose! At least advertising, at least the weather, at least hockey!
          (c) Timur Shaov
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 3 August 2015 20: 24
            +2
            "I'm not just lying there - I serve the truth!" (from)
      2. Roman 11
        Roman 11 3 August 2015 20: 58
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The main thing in Kaptsov’s articles is not the article itself, but comments on it.

        Yes, everyone eats a worm of victories and it drips on fantasy))
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 20: 47
      0
      Quote: RussKamikadZE
      IN is not a place for fairy tales and delirium

      Delirium delirium, strife, Napoleon at one time refused from steamboats.
  22. RussKamikadZE
    RussKamikadZE 3 August 2015 17: 13
    -3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: RussKamikadZE
    Ban this fanatic already! Tired of his nonsense to read! IN is not a place for fairy tales and delirium, but a military resource (at least before it was).

    Come on you. The main thing in Kaptsov’s articles is not the article itself, but comments on it. smile

    Under each article, the comments are almost one to one. As much as possible. They explained everything to the person several times, and he continues to flood. Yes, in ships and their use, he absolutely does not understand.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 21: 03
      +2
      Quote: RussKamikadZE
      Yes, in ships and their use, he absolutely does not understand.

      How do you know? Maybe he is interested in observing the reaction, and truth is born in the argument. No, no, and a ripe grain will slip through. )
  23. IAlex
    IAlex 3 August 2015 17: 30
    +1
    Only the strong survive in nature, and no matter what traits are strong. If the cruisers are almost extinct, then they turned out to be weaklings, and the aircraft carriers continue to do everything ...
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 3 August 2015 21: 07
      +1
      Quote: IAlex
      cruisers died out, so they turned out to be weaklings, and aircraft carriers continue to do everything ...

      The calendar, like the wind, is not constant.
      1. IAlex
        IAlex 4 August 2015 10: 02
        +1
        In this world, in general, everything is temporary - even the world itself ...
  24. rosarioagro
    rosarioagro 3 August 2015 18: 14
    +1
    the project of the destroyer "Leader" provides for its displacement of 15-20000 thousand tons, why not a battleship? :-)
  25. Val_y
    Val_y 3 August 2015 18: 30
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Clothing safety measures attest to radiation safety measures taken

    Quote: Alexey RA
    Do you seriously judge the level of radiation by clothing?


    I think it's all the same irony wink but about attitudes towards radiation or fear, at that time they were completely absent, so from here the corresponding vestments laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      4 August 2015 09: 01
      0
      Quote: Val_Y
      or fear were absent at that time, so from here and the corresponding vestment

      If they fell and died in a couple of days, they would go to suits of the highest protection
      and so - no spacesuits were there. climbed aboard ships and spent days looking at damage
  26. barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 August 2015 20: 03
    +1
    I liked the article, I have the same opinion as the author. It is pointless to argue, but ships are increasingly dressing in armor, while only in projects in the main, but the consciousness of customers is beginning to change and it comes to understanding that one or two RCCs to destroy a billionth destroyer or half a billion frigate is too greasy. At the same time, it comes to understanding that having made the ship an arsenal with hundreds of missiles (RCC) and reliably defended with armor the whole thing with the addition of artillery to work along the shore (well, ships can) it turns out the same battleship of the future or whatever it is called. The usefulness of such ships is obvious, as well as the fact that they will not become mass, one for a large connection (fleet) of ships or for 2-3 aug. Here you can read what thoughts the Americans came to by strengthening their fleet in the eighties with battleships, the results of shelling the coast with battleships and how the Americans themselves evaluated them (extremely positive). In general, Oleg is a fat plus) smile
  27. Alex
    Alex 3 August 2015 23: 56
    +3
    The attack was carried out at the aft corners, as the least dangerous from the point of view of anti-aircraft fire, as a result, the convergence rate of the “whatnots” with the battleship was only 30 nodes
    I dare to ask, what was the speed of the battleship then? Or have the laws of addition of speeds been canceled?
    1. Santa Fe
      4 August 2015 09: 03
      +1
      Quote: Alex
      What was the speed of the battleship then?

      ~ 30 nodes

      what confused you
      1. Alex
        Alex 4 August 2015 22: 37
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what confused you

        It turns out that the speed of the torpedo bomber around 60 knots is slightly more than 100 km / h. Somehow not impressive.
        1. Santa Fe
          5 August 2015 05: 38
          +1
          Quote: Alex
          60 knots - a little more than 100 km / h. Somehow not impressive.

          do not forget to take into account the fresh wind
          1. Alex
            Alex 5 August 2015 16: 10
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            do not forget to take into account the fresh wind

            Anyway, somehow it doesn't work out very well. According to Wiki, for Fairey Swordfish (and we are obviously talking about it), the maximum speed is 222 km / h, cruising is 207 km / h. That is, in this case, the wind ate almost half, which corresponds to the strength of the 11 wind score on the Beaufort scale (severe storm). There is either some kind of error in the original document, or I messed up something.
  28. Roman 11
    Roman 11 4 August 2015 08: 50
    0
    Here, somehow, it is necessary to call articles, development prospects or the integration of armor in the modern fleet in a different way.
  29. Roman 11
    Roman 11 4 August 2015 09: 17
    0
    Attack of Roma, all right.
  30. RussKamikadZE
    RussKamikadZE 4 August 2015 10: 35
    +1
    Quote: Novel 11
    Quote: RussKamikadZE
    IN is not a place for fairy tales and delirium

    Delirium delirium, strife, Napoleon at one time refused from steamboats.

    In his time, and the ships were so-so. In general, the Navy was not needed then.
  31. LMaksim
    LMaksim 4 August 2015 15: 13
    0
    The theme of Bismarck was dealt with several years ago and quite densely. Bismar was armed with 10 20mm anti-aircraft guns and 16 105mm guns. This is according to the literature. In their last battle, the crew just went on the air at the wrong time, and then they were not very lucky with the torpedo, and the battle did not work out. In general, a set of events played a role. Further, the ship flooded the crew, this is not the result of combat damage. Apart from the destruction on the upper decks of all that is possible, the armored belt was pierced by shells only 4 times. Who does not believe, look for the dock. a film about this ship in the vastness of YouTube.
    Now Tirpitz. Tirpitz had 84 anti-aircraft guns on board. Can you imagine that 84 anti-aircraft guns can? The Allies drank with him in full.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 4 August 2015 21: 48
      +2
      Quote: LMaksim
      In their last battle, the crew just went on the air at the wrong time, and then they were not very lucky with the torpedo, and the battle did not work out. In general, a set of events played a role.

      In order to avoid such a chain of these accidents and reduce these risks at least 5 times, Doenitz didn’t have enough brain to bring the ships into one connection of the Atlantic wanderers - from Gneisenau and Bismarck, a total of 4 lx, to give a couple of crt, pocket, some auxiliary! Promptly subordinate a couple to them - the three curtains of wolf packs ...... And which convoy will reach England ?? Doenitz did not have enough brains (Spee's loss did not teach anything), because he was a submariner, this means that admirals gravitating to something begin to blunt and not see other great opportunities. The strength of the battleship is not in the single pursuit of parades on the lines, but in the ability of the group to take the right position on the way to the mother country.
      1. BIG
        BIG 18 August 2015 12: 10
        0
        Roman 11
        "the lion attacks the rabbit with all its might" - This is about the idea of ​​organizing a super squadron for the sake of sinking several steamers.
        But can such a squadron quietly break into the ocean? And if not, will the Angles not recall their convoys to the ports? And even if it makes a rustle, can it be able to return back, avoiding squadron combat, aviation attacks and anticipating submarines in the most likely directions?
        Who will risk the entire linear fleet for the sake of some convoy there?
        In my opinion, the very idea of ​​using heavy ships to attack communications is absurd.
  32. Taoist
    Taoist 4 August 2015 17: 16
    0
    "there is no God except the battleship and Kaptsov his prophet" (c) bully

    But seriously ... all the arguments for and all the arguments against are not worth the paper they are written on. For there are also "accidents inevitable at sea" when the "Mighty Hood" flies into the air from an almost accidental hit which, even theoretically, should not have pierced the armor, and Japanese super battleships cannot drown unarmored "escorts" that are inferior to japa in absolutely all respects .. ...
    and so on on the list.
    As a result, Her Majesty "economy" comes to the fore - when we create weapons we must at least clearly understand what (primarily political) tasks we are going to solve with the help of this "big stick".

    Alas, there are no tasks corresponding to the status of a "big black ship" on planet Earth and are not expected. And everything else is just literature ...
    1. Santa Fe
      4 August 2015 21: 51
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      As a result, Her Majesty "economy

      2,5 billion to the bottom when meeting the first exoset
      300 people x 1 million dollars = 300 million compensation for families.

      walked normally. on the three rubles
      Quote: Taoist
      clearly understand what (primarily political) tasks we are going to solve with the help of this "big stick".

      When we passed the Strait of Hormuz, silence reigned on the coast of Iran. The war at sea completely stopped. ”
      - Capten Larry Sequist, commander of the battleship "Iowa" about the events of the Tanker War (mid-80-x).

      "Of your entire fleet, only a battleship looks like a real weapon."
      - Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

      "We are ready to pay the cost of maintaining two Iowa class battleships in order to ensure their continuous combat patrols in the Persian Gulf for nine months a year."
      - Appeal by the Sultan of Oman to US Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, autumn 1991

      The CSW neo-battleship is significantly smaller than the supercarrier (50 thousand vs. 100 thousand tons, the crew is less than 15 times) and, therefore, cannot be more expensive than the nuclear giant with a superradar, electromagnetic catapults and a plasma garbage disposal system. The cost of the carrier “Gerald Ford”, excluding the cost of his wing, exceeds 13 billion dollars. However, the enormous figure does not bother the military at all - the Fords are planned to be built with a series of 10-11 units at the rate of one ship in 4-5 years.

      The neolinkor concept was proposed by the Department of Defense Forces (Office of Force Transformation, OFT) of the US Department of Defense in 2007.

      Neolinkor is a simple and obvious solution for a number of important tasks: fire support (cheap, reliable and efficient), demonstrations of power in peacetime (it’s easy to imagine what a fierce look CSW will have). Due to its armament and the highest combat stability, the battleship will be the most important figure in the theater of war. An invulnerable and immortal warrior who, with his presence alone, gives awe to the enemy and diverts significant resources to attempts to destroy such a ship.
      1. srelock
        srelock 6 August 2015 04: 12
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Neolinkor is a simple and obvious solution for a number of important tasks: fire support (cheap, reliable and effective), demonstrations of power in peacetime (it is easy to imagine what a fierce look will be for CSW). Due to its armament and the highest combat stability, the battleship will be the most important figure in the theater of war. An invulnerable and immortal warrior who, with his presence alone, gives awe to the enemy and diverts significant resources to attempts to destroy such a ship.

        That's exactly what the years of commercials in the 30s of the last century thought ...
  33. RiverVV
    RiverVV 4 August 2015 18: 27
    0
    Battleship is a blessed topic. All battleship is good. Hefty, guns - you can put your head in, smokes ... beauty. One trouble: not needed. Churchill mentioned in his memoirs that the States literally saved England by providing it with fifty obsolete (!) Destroyers. Having a powerful navy, the country could not resist the German submarines, which were not so many. Those who wish can also google Dozen’s memoirs. You will be surprised how much damage and how small forces the Germans were able to inflict.

    Hence the moral: every ship is good in its place and in its time. You will not send escort a merchant convoy battleship. This is the work of destroyers, cruisers and light aircraft carriers and it was - 99%. Why then do you need a battleship if it is useless in convoys? To bring fear to the coast? So this aircraft carrier can, and much better. For the battleship there remains an extremely narrow niche - a battle at sea, against the enemy squadron, with which it is not covered by aircraft and submarines. All successful applications are just that. Battleships, as a class, were created for such battles.

    Well, what difference does it make how many hits Yamato took? He was sunk anyway. What difference does it make how many torpedoes hit the Shinano and how long it stayed afloat? One devil drowned with the team. A battleship outside of its niche is doomed.
    1. 6 inches
      6 inches 4 August 2015 19: 05
      +2
      but doesn’t it seem that the example of Yamato and Sinano is illogical? Using a superlinkor as a suicide ship is still not a typical case. Is it at least silly to put an end to the ships on this example? Or the Sinano transition without an escort and with a minimally trained crew is also a typical use of combat units? in my opinion it’s all about the generals who are always preparing for the last war .... and why is an aircraft carrier better along the coast? what? the cost of an airplane sortie and a projectile is even ridiculous to compare. and you probably yourself know about the vulnerability of an aircraft carrier. opponents of battleships are stubbornly trying to squeeze it into the confrontation with aug. and completely forgetting that in this case the battleship will go more than one. commentary.
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 4 August 2015 20: 39
        0
        Quote: 6 inches
        But do not you think that the example of Yamato and Sinano is illogical?

        It is clear even to children that Yamato's air defense did not meet the requirements. Why does he need 155mm with a constant struggle for air ?? It was necessary to replace them with universal 5 "-ki. They still somehow competed with the amami and approached the requirements. The close air defense and there is nothing to compare - the type 96 is the worst, the only representative from the Japanese side in close combat with aircraft. Weight of installation, rate of fire , rotation speed, lethal distance, lack of a remote fuse, light cartridges - nothing could seriously impede air attacks. If Erlikons and Bofors were on it, it would be almost unsinkable from the air. And look at Musashi in the last battle - what kind of warrant it is Air Defense ?? Left 1 es, on the right, probably not at all. And other heavy ships go at a distance, as if not stopping the aircraft from shooting their kinsman ......... I think there should be destroyers on the outer ring, then a cruiser, in the center of the battleship? Or not?? And here it looks like a wake. Many will object, you’re not in battle, but it’s more difficult to steer under bombs. But it’s known that Halsey’s guys sank Musashi and the destroyer, possibly on the left in the photo. The rest are a few hits, Nagato, Yamato ....
    2. yehat
      yehat 13 August 2015 13: 51
      0
      battleships cannot be considered without their coastal shooting capabilities.
      Often, the enemy is forced to react to the battleship’s exit simply because its siege potential is very large.
  34. RiverVV
    RiverVV 4 August 2015 20: 08
    0
    and why is an aircraft carrier better offshore?

    Stupid question. Because the plane flies a little farther away from the shell, carries a little more explosives, and naval artillery hits the horizon, in squares.
    1. 6 inches
      6 inches 4 August 2015 20: 23
      +2
      the plane costs even more money than the projectile. And the pilot of the plane is even more. About explosives, how many large-caliber guns can shoot off per minute is not every aircraft can do. Modern artillery can not only by area. -platform targets ... so they didn’t convince. Remember Khruschev's misalignment with rockets? So now you also offer something like that .. you can certainly bomb each infantryman with guided bombs — how fast will you stay without pants?
      1. RiverVV
        RiverVV 5 August 2015 05: 53
        -2
        Play Starcraft.
        1. 6 inches
          6 inches 5 August 2015 06: 57
          +2
          if there are no arguments, then you should not stoop to attempts to insult me. You don’t humiliate me like that, but you can easily.
  35. Taoist
    Taoist 4 August 2015 22: 34
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Due to its armament and the highest combat stability, the battleship will be the most important figure in the theater of war. An invulnerable and immortal warrior who, with his presence alone, gives awe to the enemy and diverts significant resources to attempts to destroy such a ship.



    I, I, naturlich ... are you still going to "wash your boots in the Indian ocean"?
    Well, explain to me such a logical twist that the only country that did have those "invulnerable and immortal warriors" all the same eventually retrained them to museums finally? Knightly armor will not come off for furniture and solidity ... And one can dream of how they had "immortal warriors" ... That's the trouble - the arquebusiers did not know about it ...

    By the way, the classic aircraft carriers seem to be similar too soon ... for the era of "drones" is coming ... by the way, by the way, too ... On the bottom, too, booking? ;-)

    As it’s already, it becomes boring to argue ... all around one Kaptsov all in white ... But the armadillos are not building and they are not building ... Abidna right?

    Write a memo to the General Music School - struck by your insights, they will certainly immediately accept the program of creating a "big white fleet" named after you ...
    1. 6 inches
      6 inches 4 August 2015 23: 06
      +2
      easily. the age of classical battleships ended with the advent of the apple. the point was to build such ships when there was no escape from the edged bomb. but now everyone realized that using it was either madness or an extreme measure. And there won’t be any wins in such a war. no matter where .. and the report in the medical school ... I remember at the beginning of this century, doctors argued that with a car speed of more than 45 km the human body will not survive .. and they treated heroin with a cold .. but they were recognized experts. And how it was confirmed ? and by the way the armor comes back ... unnoticed?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 5 August 2015 10: 03
        0
        Did you not notice that the power of conventional weapons is also quite close to nuclear weapons? Only without unnecessary "bonuses" in the form of radioactive contamination. Yes, "armor is partly returning" - but the battles of our time are far from ramming spears in a close formation and from "linear tactics" ...
        For those who are on the "armored train" I will repeat once again the simple truth that no one refused constructive protection and is not going to give up ... but to build "battleships" in which half of the displacement is passive protection, to put it mildly, too much ...

        And experts should still trust everything at least nominally - we already have a country of militant amateurs with Google instead of knowledge.
        1. 6 inches
          6 inches 5 August 2015 17: 22
          +1
          But experts should still trust everything at least nominally - we already have a country of militant amateurs with Google instead of knowledge ... but I agree with that. Moreover, completely. It’s just that sometimes experts completely do not see another way. It’s enough to remember the same ram instead normal nasal extremity ..
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 5 August 2015 23: 02
            0
            Well, let's say this - not that they would not be seen, but they are more conservative (which is understandable) - the battering ram was quite justified for itself at one time - later it became a tradition and then degenerated into a bulb ... new quality. Taran, by the way, is a child of that short era when armor did take the upper hand over the projectile for some time ... but you can’t deceive her physics as a result ...
  36. Olezhek
    Olezhek 9 August 2015 19: 06
    0
    I can not comment on this interesting topic.
    1 It is generally accepted that Pearl Harbor meant the end of the era of battleships and the beginning of the era of aircraft carriers.
    Until this era - the ship + gun and then the era of naval aviation.
    So: The battleships at Pearl Harbor were stationed at the quay wall and could not maneuver and conduct anti-aircraft fire normally. The attack was SUDDEN.
    With the same success, the defeat of the Soviet aviation on the airfields in June 41 can be designated as the end of the aviation era.
    I want to ask - what ischo American battleships were drowned by Japanese or German aircraft?
    Generally, the Japanese somehow didn’t manage to sink the American cruisers from the air either ...
    What is the matter ??
    A good air defense system and the farther the better and better ...
    And even when the Japanese broke through and hit the battleship with a bomb, it was like a pea ..
    It was very difficult for the Japanese torpedo to break through to the US battleship / cruiser ...
    By the way, I read "Cruiser Ulysses" by Alistair McLean - and so there the cruiser + destroyers fight off perfectly
    at the same time from dozens of pros of the Luftwaffe (not least thanks to radars !!)
    My conclusion is on the (unconditionally limited) amount of information: An armored modern ship with a modern air defense system COULB to fight against aviation ...
    And if isho and avia - cover him to highlight ... Generally lyapota ..
    2 But aircraft carriers, if in principle, caught fire from one successful bomb ...
    If we remember Midway .... Somehow the 4 Japanese heavy aircraft carrier quickly burned down ...
    By the way, for some reason no one analyzes the future of aircraft carriers from this point of view. One attack and shock super-ship destroyed.
    Yes, the Japanese air defense was weak. But nevertheless .. As the aircraft carriers did not impress me. So much invested in them and here.
    So easily.
    Just when they tell you how great a ship carrier aircraft carrier forget to talk about its vulnerable places.
    The fact that this is a giant floating tank with jet fuel. With the launch and landing of aircraft seriously limit the aircraft carrier maneuvers.
    What is so easy to raise all the AUG planes is as be impossible ...
    But these are the details of the details ..

    3 We have the successful use of AUG by Americans in the second half of the war in the Pacific, but we must bear in mind that
    at this time, both the Japanese fleet and especially the Japanese aviation were already "nightmarish"
    The Japanese just can't "swing and hit" properly
    And amers aircraft (including the base !!!) are much more.

    4 From my point of view, aircraft carrier equipment is very specific. A big, vulnerable ship that can of course
    and strike from afar, and maybe burn ingloriously ...
  37. Olezhek
    Olezhek 9 August 2015 19: 45
    0
    Quote: 6 inches
    the plane costs even more money than the projectile. And the pilot of the plane is even more. About explosives, how many large-caliber guns can shoot off per minute is not every aircraft can do. Modern artillery can not only by area. -platform targets ... so they didn’t convince. Remember Khruschev's misalignment with rockets? So now you also offer something like that .. you can certainly bomb each infantryman with guided bombs — how fast will you stay without pants?

    -------------------------------------------------- -----------
    So let's continue: as 6 inches correctly observed, inches - cannon artillery can continuously send a stream of shells
    kilometers for 40 - and it is necessary to take into account that over the past 70 years, technology has moved far ahead and how there -
    active-reactive? shells ... There you can continue to throw ..
    And this is the flow of SNARJADES - they are not a pity and shoot them down (like rockets) or interfere with them will not work.
    By the way, it is possible to conduct a MASS launch of NURS ...
    The platform then allows .. Such a megazalp along the coast is kilometers with STA (big Smerch) and hello, the ship is leaving ..
    The aircraft carrier can never do this ..

    So consider the collision AUG (modern) and the shock group based on the cruiser URO ...
    Without a nuclear apocalypse ... Without a tactical nuclear weapons ..
    In general terms, kaneshna - I do not have secret data on missiles / airplanes as well as a supercomputer ..
    So sho - in the first approximation ..

    So the attack by airplanes is not as scary as it seems.

    1 You can not lift them all at once is a difficult operation.
    2 You can not send all raised aircraft to distant targets. (You need a cover)
    3 If we fly somewhere over 1000 kilometers - we need a LOT of fuel. (less bomb loading)
    4 Flying over the ocean is very difficult (EW facilities will be used) so about PSE and so on - forget it.
    5 Aircraft connections can be placed on the cruiser. (you need a lot of space if cho)
    6 Covering destroyers also have local air defense

    Next comes the exchange of missiles and EW radiation between carriers.
    The ships carry missiles and radars and aircraft carry missiles and radars.
    But the ships will carry much more, and if one rocket explosion is the end for the aircraft,
    then the boat (especially armored cruiser) still swims
    The cruiser is stupidly stronger and stupidly has more weapons on board. Something like this. And more radar And more powerful ...

    By the way, speaking of the Kracer, one cannot help but recall the novelty - the drones, the base for which it can serve.
    For example, drone - carrier 2x air-to-air missiles. (near / middle defense) And why not ??
    A dozen of these drones (primitive and squalid, let them) are sent to meet enemy planes ..

    enemy aircraft shoot down our drones? Have we already had air battles?

    Then - medium-range ballistic missiles / - with self-guided warheads - up to 1 000 km.
    (for those aircraft carriers themselves) (that’s what we need is a cruiser and not a frigate) / brand new hyperapparaty- for an aircraft carrier
    pay off such sophistication

    In short - not truncated so bad.
    A cruiser is not an armored vehicle with cannons — but a platform ... for NEW armaments.
    1. yehat
      yehat 13 August 2015 13: 54
      0
      about the flow of shells is not entirely true.
      all marine rapid-firing systems have a very limited resource barrel guns.
      even if they do not fail after intensive firing, the accuracy of the fire will drop significantly.
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 13 August 2015 19: 51
        0
        The armament of the main caliber of Königsberg-type cruisers was represented by nine 150-mm X-NUMX-caliber C / 60 X-guns. ... Resource per barrel was about 25 shots.
        ----------------------
        So offhand ..
        But the trunks can be changed (of course not at sea)
        No one will give us endlessly hammering on coastal targets in a normal war ..
        Shoot out a dozen - another volleys and shoot down ..
        And then you understand yourself under the counter strike get.
        1. yehat
          yehat 18 August 2015 17: 44
          0
          the resource was 500, but not for the rate of fire of 5-8 per minute
          I think it was a maximum of 3 times less pace.
    2. BIG
      BIG 18 August 2015 12: 54
      0
      In short - not truncated so bad.

      I agree that modern air defense systems will not allow airplanes to melt cruisers like kittens.
      But. With AWACS aircraft, the AUG can detect the AUG long before ... and choose a comfortable battle distance. Further, the squadron of strike aircraft sends N-th number of tomahawks from the maximum distance. Air defense cope? Good, but after a few hours the operation can be repeated. And again, and ... And where will KUG launch its anti-ship missiles? Where will the coordinates come from?
      You can repel blows. Some time. And how long will the missiles last?
      How to answer?
  38. ZVTSO
    ZVTSO 25 August 2015 23: 26
    0
    One of them had decisive consequences. Trying to evade the torpedo, the Bismarck turned to the left, and instead of the armored belt on the starboard side, the torpedo hit the stern, damaging the steering gear and jamming the rudders in the extreme position.
    Explicit jamb of captain Bismarck. Water was not received in the ballast tanks, the ship was not put into combat position.
    Perhaps not a jamb, but ballast tanks specially emptied to win a little in speed. And when approaching the aircraft did not have time to fill again.
    It doesn't matter why, but the point here is that the point is not the turn itself. Rather, not only in it. And the fact that Bismarck was not brought into combat condition. That's why such consequences.