How lost weapons, ammunition and armor

163
How lost weapons, ammunition and armor


The two towers of the main caliber of “Cleveland” weighed more than all 80 rocket mines of the destroyer “Zamvolt”. However, this is not all. For completeness, it is worth considering that the armament of a modern ship is located under the deck, while the Cleveland towers are located above. Taking into account the difference in the height of the location of central heating, this should create an extra thousand tons * m of overturning moment (without taking into account the barbets with six-inch walls).

No less horrendous, the results will be given by comparing the TARC Peter the Great and the heavy cruiser Des Moines. Main weapon “Peter” - twenty rockets “Granit” - weigh three times less than one tower “De Moyne” (450 tons).

And the veteran had three such towers. Plus another, equally powerful and bulky armament - armor shell (belt - 152 mm, deck - 90 mm solid metal), crew of 1800 people and move the 33 node. As a result, “De Moyne” turned out to be 6000 tons lighter than the atomic super cruiser, while it was built on 50 years earlier ...


Vertical launch installation module Mk.57 (one of twenty on board Zamvolta). The mass of the 4-cell PU with anti-shatter armor is 15 tons


But since we chose “Cleveland” and “Zamvolt” for comparison, we will continue the analysis on these more simple examples:

The crew of the “Zamvolta” - 140 people (if necessary up to 200).
“Cleveland” - 1235 people.

Modern stealth destroyer is not easy. In addition to the missiles, it carries a pair of automatic 155 mm AGS cannons weighing 100 tons (each). But he is useless by artillery with “Cleveland”. Twelve 127-mm guns in the six Mk.32 towers, for a total of 300 tons.


Zamvolta gun



Universal gun mount 5 "/ 38


Light defensive armament. Zamvolta has a pair of 30-mm automata.

In “Cleveland” - 12 “Bofors” and 20 “Oerlikon”. Such nonsense, an extra hundred tons on the upper deck and superstructure platforms.

It seems we have forgotten something?

Inside the cruisers of that era there was one interesting element that looked like a box without a bottom. Box sizes 120 x 20 x 4,2 meters. The wall thickness of the box: in the front part - 51 mm of armor steel of class “A”, the area of ​​machine rooms - differentially 83-127 mm, “cover” of the box - 51 mm. The armor plates were installed on a sixteen millimeter lining of structural steel STS.

All this is an armored stronghold weighing 1468 tons (almost 13% of the standard displacement of the cruiser). This figure includes armored traverses, barbets of the GK towers, cellar protection (93-120 mm) and conning tower with 130 mm walls.

In short, the creators of "Zamvolta" is not dreamed of.

Power point.

“Zamvolt” - the high-tech glamor. Two super-turbines “Rolls-Royce MT30”, which drive the generators RR4500. Gas turbines, full electric movement, everything is controlled by pressing buttons.

Cleveland - the propulsion system is like hell. Eight water tube boilers “Babcock & Wilksos”, four turbo-gear units. Superheated steam whistle, soot, grinding, rust ...

And what is their power? - the reader will ask.

Their power is the same ~ about 100 thousand l. with. Moreover, the modern “Zamvolt” even lags behind the cruiser of the WWII era in speed (30 vs. 32 knots.)

Maybe the whole thing in modern gas turbine plants, for which work requires a huge amount of air? Expanded gas ducts, occupying excess hull volumes - where you can’t put rockets or computers ...

Well, eight boilers “Babcock and Wilksos” smoked no less. As evidenced by the two pipes, the height of a five-story building, and the drawing of "Cleveland", where the entire middle part of the building was occupied by chimneys.



And here is another interesting remark:

With a full supply of fuel (2498 tons of oil), “Cleveland” could pass 10000 nautical miles (half the globe!) At an economic speed of 15 bonds.

Data for “Zamvolta” no. Nevertheless, as practice shows, none of the modern cruisers and destroyers could not surpass the Cleveland cruise range.

Aviation Group

“Zamvolt” - 2 multipurpose helicopter.
“Cleveland” - 2 seaplane OS2U “Kingfisher”.

Of course, the helicopter is twice as heavy as the old hydroplane. But to ensure the work of hydroplanes, two pneumatic catapults and a crane were required to lift them out of the water.



Radar

"Of course! - the reader exclaims. - Electronics on board a warship - in a protected version, in reinforced hulls, repeatedly dubbed and connected by protected cables with steel plugs tightly screwed into the sockets of the devices. Generators, bulky radar antennas, mast structures, and also an air conditioning system for rooms with computers installed in them ... "

Calm down!

The listed problems take place, but they are not the culprits of the “unreasonable” growth of the displacement of modern ships.

And besides, the old “Cleveland” was no less saturated with high-tech equipment.



What is harder - a “mirror” of active PAR, or an armored director of the Mk.37 fire control system with a pair of radars (16 tons)? Cleveland has two such directors. And also a five-meter SC / SK type general-view radar antenna capable of detecting a bomber at a distance of 180 km and radar of an SG-type surface survey, not counting the directors of fire control of the main caliber Mk.34.

All this was done on the monstrous radio-electronic base 40-s. Only one analog computer LMS Mk.37 weighed over a ton.

“Constructors' Championship”

What is the answer to this problem?
“Zamvolt”, full displacement - 14 500 tons.
“Cleveland” - 14 100 tons.

No, we are not comparing the combat potential of the Zamvolt and the WWII cruiser.

But in terms of articles of load, the Zamvolt built on 75 years later must be equipped with some incredible amount of weapons - which weighs much less than the guns of World War II ships. And this despite the almost century-old progress in technology! On a modern ship, each ceiling, switch, generator, and switchboard weigh several times less.

Alas, nothing like this happens.

Both the weapon, and ammunition - continuous joke. 80 missiles “Zamvolta” against 200 shells for each barrel of the GC cruiser “Cleveland” (total 2400), and another universal caliber - 500 for each gun (6000). Mass is easy to calculate yourself. And everything else is in the same vein ...

Strong veteran - one of the best cruisers of the Second World War, built in the number of 29 units. Leaving astern hundreds of thousands of fiery miles and capable of making a hundred rounds per minute of the main caliber!

On the other side of the scale - the load floating with perverted articles, in which the weapon accounts for only a tiny part of the displacement, and there is nothing left at all for constructive protection.

It is clear that the main problem of “Zamvolt” is a single pyramid of the superstructure, which combines all pipes, masts, retractable antennas and gas ducts. The pyramid allowed to place the radar at a considerable height (from the 9-storey building), without disturbing the integrity of the stealth destroyer. To compensate for wind loads and overturning moment from such a “structure”, in other words, to maintain the metacentric height within normal limits, the creators of “Zamvolt” were forced to spend the lion's share of the displacement on the ballast.



Plus, a less dense layout, in which the high-tech equipment-rich compartments (combat posts, command center, etc.) “swell” in size and are squeezed into the superstructure pyramid.

Finally, new trends in shipbuilding:

- automation and mechanization of most processes (belt conveyors along and across the whole body);

- a fully sealed case with pressurized inside;

- automatic combat damage localization systems (smoke and water sensors, remote hatches and door drives, automatic fire extinguishing system), etc. small but useful things. Well combined with comfortable conditions for the crew on board (gyms, fitness, restaurant meals).

Etc.

Perhaps this is correct. But still ... From the smoke of sea battles, silhouettes of super-armed and protected ships of the past appear. And maybe when building the next Zamvolta, it is worth reconsidering some priorities in the direction of constructive protection, weapons and ammunition?


"Little Rock" - a modernized Cleveland-type missile cruiser of the end of the 1950-s.
Our news channels

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

163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -48
    18 September 2015 06: 53
    Why this stupid article, what did afftor want to say? Again, F-35 syndrome or what?
    1. +38
      18 September 2015 07: 09
      You shouldn’t be rude, you just don’t know the subject of Oleg’s articles ..)))!
      1. +4
        19 September 2015 14: 15
        I completely agree with the article, it's just that Western karable builders have broken away from traditions and realities, and continue to "surprise" the world with "wunder ships"!
    2. +19
      18 September 2015 11: 28
      Oleg is the last romantic on the forum, so he is another plus.
      1. +5
        18 September 2015 12: 17
        Chef, the mustache is gone, the armor is removed, the ship leaves! laughing
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. +3
    18 September 2015 06: 53
    after all, there was a time, in aviation, when someone completely abandoned armor in favor of speed, supersonic, someone abandoned air cannons in favor of missiles, and then "rooks" appeared. thunderbolts2, etc. the ships are large, their circulation radius is LARGE)) everything will be, but right away. but maybe soon.
  3. 0
    18 September 2015 07: 00
    The beginning of the article is more than intriguing !!
    1. +2
      18 September 2015 12: 30
      this seems to be part of more extensive material
  4. +4
    18 September 2015 07: 06
    But Zamvolt will remove any target with a pair of rockets, that in space, that in the air, at such a distance that the Moyne gunners could not even dream of. It will reach land / sea targets with artillery of 180 km, missiles of several thousand. The conditions of the battle have changed - the ships are changing.
    1. +14
      18 September 2015 07: 45
      The article addresses the issue of the relation of displacement to combat load and armor, and not the difference in the effectiveness of cannon / missile cruisers.
      1. +3
        18 September 2015 09: 40
        And one does not exist in our world in isolation from the other. Why spend a couple of dozen shells of ammunition (from shooting to destruction) if the target can be hit with the first rocket? This is an example.
        1. +4
          18 September 2015 09: 42
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Why spend a couple of dozen shells of ammunition (from shooting to destruction) if the target can be hit with the first rocket?

          Since now one rocket is enough, then the ships should become smaller
          1. +2
            18 September 2015 10: 17
            why? this anti-ship missile should become smaller - which is observed: from 0 to 8 Harpoons on cruisers and all. The rest: air defense and the Kyrgyz Republic.
            seaworthiness is also not superfluous
          2. +1
            18 September 2015 10: 52
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Since now one rocket is enough, then the ships should become smaller


            yeah, the size of a missile boat. And what? the boat carries several missiles, enough to destroy the cruiser (well, in theory). But this is your logic. BUT there are still seaworthy qualities of this boat (known to everyone), range. That's why stupid admirals and designers build large ships (AND, OH GOD !!! - not armored !!!) so that they can deliver their missiles wherever
            1. +2
              18 September 2015 17: 17
              Delta

              I have a strong suspicion that Fursenko’s graduates got to designing ships. Secret weapon of the Russian Federation.
            2. +1
              19 September 2015 14: 22
              A missile is created for a specific purpose, and ships for certain tasks, and when these aluminum galoshes begin to sink then we will see how the trends in shipbuilding change!
          3. +1
            18 September 2015 11: 30
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Since now one rocket is enough, then the ships should become smaller

            Why?
            Goals do not become smaller.
            In addition, abrakadabre correctly said: if we consider the tonnage in conjunction with armaments, then it IS NOT possible to say the same with capabilities in general. The same Zamfolt can count in seconds millions of different processes, issue forecasts regarding the situation at the BV theater, and analyze a huge stream of incoming data. This is extremely important.
            Here you can see the number of Cleveland-class cruisers built and Zamwolts planned. I'm pretty sure all Zamwolts will have better efficiency than the Clevelands!
      2. +2
        18 September 2015 18: 55
        Quote: CruorVult
        The article addresses the issue of the relation of displacement to combat load and armor, and not the difference in the effectiveness of cannon / missile cruisers.


        Yes, I support, the article is interesting, intriguing and makes you think

        It is possible that the author is missing something - it is possible that there is an explanation, but nevertheless there is clearly a question requiring an explanation of why the weight of weapons and armor in relation to the displacement is reduced - can not the fitness and dining rooms take all this difference? Can they really now spend everything on crew conditions? Or were the ships of the past more efficient?
    2. 0
      18 September 2015 17: 14
      sevtrsh

      If it swims up and does not roll over in the wave.

      It also says that seaworthiness is bad. High center of gravity.
    3. +1
      18 September 2015 20: 23
      Quote: sevtrash
      Will reach land / sea targets with artillery in 180 km

      ??
  5. +5
    18 September 2015 07: 34
    Honestly, Oleg, tired of it! From article to article the same thing, straight deja vu some! My minus.
    1. +6
      18 September 2015 08: 26
      Quote: Serg65
      tired of it! From article to article the same thing, straight deja vu some!

      Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas
      1. +1
        18 September 2015 08: 34
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas

        Oleg, I didn’t notice rudeness after you!
        1. -2
          18 September 2015 17: 08
          Quote: Serg65
          Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas
          Oleg, I didn’t notice rudeness after you!

          And where is rudeness? Ukraine, Donbas or Poroshenko?

          An interesting topic, but I'm afraid of real opponents except Andrey from Chelyabinsk will not.
          1. +3
            18 September 2015 18: 41
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            An interesting topic, but I'm afraid of real opponents except Andrey from Chelyabinsk will not.

            what And do not want to oppose yourself?
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            And where is rudeness? Ukraine, Donbas or Poroshenko?

            Do you know anything about subtle sarcasm?
            1. -1
              18 September 2015 23: 31
              Quote: Serg65
              Do you know anything about subtle sarcasm?

              Is it you like a subtle sarcosist? Or find out what you want?
              1. +1
                19 September 2015 06: 57
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Or find out what you want?

                Michael, of course, I have a thirst for knowledge, for example, I have long been tormented by the thought .. is there life on Mars what
                1. -2
                  19 September 2015 08: 05
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Michael, of course, I have a thirst for knowledge, for example, I have long been tormented by the thought .. is there life on Mars

                  There is, do not even hesitate, here on the video Martians ride on cars.
      2. +8
        18 September 2015 08: 37
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Serg65
        tired of it! From article to article the same thing, straight deja vu some!

        Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas


        Oleg, no need to distort. You should have listened to the critics, of which you have a lot, at least once. Your battles with windmills on the principle "I am alone, the whole world is out of step" are no longer even funny and stupidly take up space on the site. And don't talk about Ukraine. You published a good article a couple of days ago on Russian shipbuilding. But these reserved relics and sailing monsters ...
        1. +13
          18 September 2015 13: 06
          Place on the site? Are you seriously?
          If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody forces you. If the author is wrong, comment, justify your, as you think, correct point of view. Oleg writes well and has his own theme. Of those who have been on Voennoye Obozreniye for a long time, some people may have bothered with it, but again, not all. And those who first came to the site will surely remember his articles and the person will come to us again. Oleg writes easily and easily, always accompanies his articles with photographs. We do not agree - we comment, prove, write our articles.
          Sincerely.
          1. +1
            18 September 2015 17: 37
            Quote: teron
            We do not agree - we comment, prove, write our articles.

            I fully support, well said.
          2. +1
            18 September 2015 17: 41
            Quote: teron
            Oleg easily and easily writes, always accompanies his articles with photographs. We do not agree - we comment, prove, write our articles.

            Excuse me
            How they lost weapons, ammunition and armor. Part two.
            A brief overview of naval disasters during the 1914-1915 period. and 1939- 1945 years.
            22 September 1014 year. The German U-9 submarine drowned three British armored cruisers in one hour!
            1. +1
              18 September 2015 17: 46
              On September 28, 1914, the German submarine U-26 sank the Russian armored cruiser Pallada
              1. +1
                18 September 2015 17: 55
                On 18 of March 1915 of the year, the battleship of the Royal Navy of Britain, “Irresistible”, was blown up by a mine during the Dardanelles operation and three hours later it was sunk by Turkish batteries.
                1. +1
                  18 September 2015 18: 05
                  Battle of Jutland, the British Navy battlecruiser Infetigable explodes 30 seconds after being hit by two shells from the German Navy battlecruiser Von der Tann
                  1. +1
                    18 September 2015 18: 08
                    On January 24, 1915, the armored cruiser of the German Navy "Blucher" was sunk.
                    1. +1
                      18 September 2015 18: 14
                      On April 9, 1940, the heavy cruiser Blucher 2 was sunk by Norwegian coastal batteries
                      1. +1
                        18 September 2015 18: 19
                        November 12, 1941 near the Grafskaya pier of Sevastopol, the light cruiser "Chervona Ukraine" sinks from two bombs
                      2. +2
                        18 September 2015 18: 25
                        September 23, 1941 in Kronstadt, the battleship "Marat" lay down on the ground from being hit by two aerial bombs
                      3. +3
                        18 September 2015 18: 31
                        This is unfortunately far from a complete list of armored monsters, which the armor did not help. To my deep regret, the murder weapons are moving much faster than the defenses!
                      4. -1
                        18 September 2015 18: 46
                        Quote: Serg65
                        To my deep regret, the murder weapons are moving much faster than the defenses!

                        U-331 captain Hans-Dietrich von Tiesenhausen did not know about the death of Barham. When he fired with four torpedoes, the submarine was thrown up and the British from Valiant noticed it ... cutting. Valiant gave several volleys of the main caliber (shells went higher due to the short distance), and then tried to ram the Germans. Therefore, after the salvo, von Tiesenhausen dived and lay down at a depth of 265 m, which was even somewhere 100 m deeper than what was considered the maximum permissible depth for U-331. Since the rescue of sailors from Barham did not allow the English destroyers to use depth bombs, von Tiesenhausen slowly crawled away to the north and was like that.
                      5. -9
                        18 September 2015 21: 49
                        It is doubtful that Putin will create something similar to Zamvolt, there will be another project that gives profit to friends of the oligarchs and Ukraine, he erred.
                      6. +3
                        18 September 2015 23: 19
                        And what about Putin and Ukraine? You would have written about Lukoshenko and Zimbabwe ...
                      7. -4
                        18 September 2015 23: 49
                        Quote: viktorR
                        And what about Putin and Ukraine?

                        So Putin had a fight with Ukraine, now shipbuilding in Russia stopped until 2018, and Lukashenko tried to reconcile everyone to trade as before, everything and everyone, Zimbabwe was out of business
                      8. +1
                        20 September 2015 10: 56
                        I won’t even argue that you are either a Troll or not an adequate person.

                        I can directly imagine how Putin did not "quarrel" with Ukraine, and you would immediately write on the forum that he "fucked up" Sevastopol. Go to the forest in short, "warrior" pancake light.
                      9. -1
                        18 September 2015 23: 51
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Since the rescue of sailors from Barham did not allow the English destroyers to use depth bombs, von Tiesenhausen slowly crawled away to the north and was like that.

                        All of the above is a historical fact.
                      10. +1
                        19 September 2015 05: 17
                        Quote: Serg65
                        September 23, 1941 in Kronstadt, the battleship "Marat" lay down on the ground from being hit by two aerial bombs

                        1. Marat is no battleship
                        the weakest dreadnought of the First World War, completely obsolete by 1941

                        2. There was one bomb, 1500 kg

                        And what is surprising about all this?

                        LC "Vittorio" did not sink from two similar bombs. And it didn't even hurt much - a month of repair
                      11. +3
                        19 September 2015 07: 55
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1. Marat is no battleship
                        the weakest dreadnought of the First World War, completely obsolete by 1941

                        Ie "Marat", is it a mobilized dry cargo ship that did not have armor protection? Did I understand correctly, Oleg?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        LC "Vittorio" did not sink from two similar bombs. And it didn't even hurt much - a month of repair

                        Oh Oleg, Oleg ... you are constantly not saying something !!!! Why not say that "Vittorio Vineto" throughout the war has repeatedly visited the repair docks in Toronto. Two years before the events you mentioned, the Italian stood for 4 months under repair with a huge 9x3 hole in the stern. And this is in the midst of the Battle of Malta! And 3,5 months after the completion of the repair, I received another 13x6 hole, this time under the aft tower and again 4 months in the hospital! And after the bombs you mentioned, "Veneto" did not climb out to sea until surrender. And why don't you Oleg tell the applauding public that during these events the Italians lost three heavy cruisers (the best cruisers of the "Washington period") and two battleships, not counting a bunch of ships damaged and abandoned for a long time ?!
                      12. +1
                        19 September 2015 08: 30
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Ie "Marat", is it a mobilized dry cargo ship that did not have armor protection?

                        37 mm deck, splinter protection
                        Quote: Serg65
                        And why not say that "Vittorio Vineto" throughout the war repeatedly visited the repair docks in Toronto.

                        Battleship, one of the few ships of the Italian fleet, who LIVED until the end of the war (and saved the life of his crew)

                        participated in almost all battles
                        acting in a closed area, with the complete superiority of the enemy
                      13. 0
                        19 September 2015 09: 26
                        Quote: Serg65
                        during these events, the Italians lost three heavy cruisers (the best cruisers of the "Washington period") and two battleships

                        lost and lost, then war

                        "Zara" did not burn out from an unexploded PCR, but died in a real fierce battle, which is a shameful

                        what two battleships?
                        Roma on the conscience of the crew, completely unwilling to fight and put out a gift in the Moscow Region, they went to surrender to Malta
                      14. +1
                        19 September 2015 05: 24
                        Quote: Serg65
                        the light cruiser "Chervona Ukraine" sinks from two bombs

                        Why this example?
                        Did he have a reservation?

                        28 bombers
                        two bombs + 3 close explosions for a small ship in 8000 tons with virtually no air defense
                      15. +1
                        19 September 2015 07: 57
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why this example?
                        Did he have a reservation?

                        Ah, sorry Oleg, I again confused the pleasure yacht with a cruiser.
                      16. 0
                        19 September 2015 08: 31
                        Quote: Serg65
                        I again confused a pleasure yacht with a cruiser.

                        Did he have a reservation?
                  2. +1
                    19 September 2015 03: 53
                    Quote: Serg65
                    The British Navy battlecruiser Infetigable explodes 30 seconds after being hit by two shells from the German Navy battlecruiser Von der Tann

                    battle cruiser Seydlitz got an 21 hit in that battle, but safely returned to base
                    having lost only 10% of the crew

                    Jutland is generally the clearest confirmation of the benefits of armor. None of the German LCRs died, while the British Inavinsibles, who put on speed and firepower at the expense of security, lost three
                    1. +1
                      19 September 2015 07: 59
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Jutland is generally the clearest confirmation of the benefits of armor.

                      Jutland is a confirmation of the high professionalism of the Germans and the snobbery of the British and more!
                      1. +2
                        19 September 2015 08: 32
                        Quote: Serg65
                        and snobbery of the British and more!

                        what was the snobbery of the sailors of an invincible that flew into the air?
                      2. +1
                        19 September 2015 11: 26
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        what was the snobbery of the sailors of an invincible that flew into the air?

                        Oleg, do not bother !!! Do you explain that the crews of the ships are doing the will of staff admirals!
                      3. +1
                        19 September 2015 18: 18
                        Quote: Serg65
                        the will of staff admirals!

                        What was the snobbery of the staff admirals in the case of the three dead LKR British

                        The German LKR, which had an incomparably better defense, came to the base on their own. Seidlitz - 10% crew loss, 21 hit

                        Jutland - brilliant confirmation that firepower cannot be brought at the expense of security
                      4. +1
                        19 September 2015 19: 00
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What was the snobbery of the staff admirals in the case of the three dead LKR British

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Jutland - brilliant confirmation that firepower cannot be brought at the expense of security

                        Oleg, you yourself practically answered your question!
                        And yet ... I’m tormented by the question of how it happened ... an 21 shell hits the Zaydlitz and it is poorly poor afloat, and the Invincible takes off from the 2 shells ??
                        That ship that you offer for easy understanding is comparable to a manual assembly Bentley and their fate is the same! The first will be a large part of his life by the wall, and the second in a warm garage.
                        RCR "Moskva" is designed for 30 minutes of combat, after it has blown everything to pieces, the cruiser will turn into an ordinary target. Well, what's the difference whether it is an armored target or not ???? hi
                      5. +1
                        19 September 2015 19: 43
                        Quote: Serg65
                        I am tormented by the question of how it happened ... an 21 shell hits the Zaydlitz and it is poorly poor afloat, and the Invincible takes off from the 2 shells?

                        Invincible:
                        152 belt, 170 barbet

                        Seidlitz
                        300 belt, 230 barbet

                        So what was the snobbery of the British admirals?

                        Quote: Serg65
                        The ship that you offer for easy understanding is comparable to a manual assembly Bentley

                        Why is that?
                        Armor does not cost anything, against the background of other costs (BIUS, GEM, weapons)
                        Quote: Serg65
                        CD "Moscow" is designed for 30 minutes of battle

                        You invented it yourself
                      6. +2
                        20 September 2015 12: 16
                        costs .... about a rublek per rubles. The output will be all two million rubles per ton. In total, if it is not booked with a monolith, but combined normally with Kevlar-plastic-ceramic reflective sheets, and even hang modules of dynamic protection against cumulative precharges and cum. just two million units per ton of reservation per round will be released. Total 3000 tons of armor = 6 billion rubles, as it were. And if a boat of the first rank, with a displacement of 60-80k tons and carries 20-30.000 armor, we get the cost of 40-60 billion rubles plus, apart from the fact that it will be more expensive, we need more crew, other turbines, fuel consumption, etc.
                2. 0
                  19 September 2015 03: 48
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Royal British Navy battleship Irresistible

                  Armadillo 1898 g.
                  Quote: Serg65
                  "Irresistible" during the Dardanelles operation was blown up by a mine

                  And what's new
                  anything happens in battle
                  1. +1
                    19 September 2015 08: 08
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Armadillo 1898 g.

                    laughing so still an ARMOR?

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    anything happens in battle

                    That's it Oleg! In battle, in addition to shells, torpedoes snoop around the ships (to which you have some kind of strange neglect), bombs, missiles, and even combat swimmers!
                    1. 0
                      19 September 2015 08: 34
                      Quote: Serg65
                      torpedoes (to which you have some kind of strange neglect) snoop around ships, and bombs, and missiles, and even combat swimmers!

                      How many battleships of the late period (those who had PTZ) died from torpedoes and combat swimmers
              2. 0
                19 September 2015 03: 45
                Quote: Serg65
                On September 28, 1914, the German submarine U-26 sank the Russian armored cruiser Pallada

                Did Pallas have PLO facilities? But the sailors had even the slightest idea how to counteract the submarines?
            2. 0
              19 September 2015 03: 45
              Quote: Serg65
              22 September 1014 year. The German U-9 submarine drowned three British armored cruisers in one hour!

              Did Hawk, Albuquir and Cressi have any anti-submarine defenses?
              1. +1
                19 September 2015 09: 34
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Did Hawk, Albuquir and Cressi have any anti-submarine defenses?

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Did Pallas have PLO facilities? But the sailors had even the slightest idea how to counteract the submarines?

                And what do you think Oleg, the crews of the Edinburgh, General Belgrano, Molotov, Barem knew anything about the PLO? And the crews of "Arizona" and "Yamato" probably knew nothing about air defense?
                1. 0
                  20 September 2015 01: 50
                  Quote: Serg65
                  the crews of "Edinburgh", "General Belgrano", "Molotov", "Barem" knew something about PLO

                  "Edinburgh" - apparently they knew something. The only one of 10 Town-class cruisers sunk by a submarine. 10% - that's all the statistics

                  "Genral Belgrano" - did not know anything. American cruisers WWII did not have sonars and PLO, this role was traditionally assigned to destroyers. in this form and sold to Argentina

                  "Molotov" - what does Molotov have to do with it?

                  "Barham" - the only one of all battleships sunk by a submarine on the high seas. Did not have PTZ

                  "Arizona" - surprise attack on the base. And they sunk it only by accident, one of the three dead LK Pearl Harbor (out of eight)

                  Yamato - attack of 280 aircraft, the whole air army
      3. +3
        18 September 2015 09: 19
        SWEET_SIXTEEN


        Oleg, thanks for the article

        Very interesting and informative.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. +5
      18 September 2015 08: 51
      So this is an amateur ....
      I do not like it - there are a lot of articles on the site.
      This topic worries a person - let him write.
      The problem is what? request
      1. +8
        18 September 2015 10: 31
        Quote: Olezhek
        The problem is what?

        The problem, my dear Olezhek, is in physiology. Eyes are given to a person to see, including reading. The brain is given to comprehend, including read. What does Oleg write about Zamovolta in this article? And what about the same Zamovolta, he also writes in the article "The Phenomenon of Armored Ships" or "Supercruiser" Invincible ". The Future of the Fleet"? Find the Differences!
        Vyacheslav "Delta" mentions Koptsov's article in his post.
        What is the article "Russia builds ships for those who have money"? About the fact that Russia built for China 4 destroyers pr.956 EM, but not for itself. This fact caused justified indignation even among such pillars of naval thought as Andrei Kolobov "Andrei from Chelyabinsk" and my respected "donavi49". But Oleg somehow forgot to mention that the 956 project is already 42 years old and he started designing even earlier. About EM. "Eternal" is generally somehow vague "Three and a half years from the moment of laying to the entry into service for a ship of the ocean zone with a total displacement of 8000 tons! The pace of construction is catching up with the indicators of the Soviet period. Here it is, the great essence of capitalism, in the pursuit of profit, the capitalists work wonders . ". "The Eternal was laid down on November 15, 2002, and went into operation on September 28, 2006, three years turned into four, but this is not the point, the 956 project was worked out to the smallest detail and tested for a long time, I don't want to start production! the last hull was launched in 1999.
        Quote: Olezhek
        So this is for everybody ...

        Hello to lovers hi
        1. +4
          18 September 2015 15: 05
          The problem my dear Olezek in physiology. Eyes are given to a person to see, including read. The brain is given to comprehend, including read.


          I have in my country house and at home books MUCH more than I can read in my whole life ..
          (she is short devil)
          I have thousands of movies and hundreds of games on external drives ... Tens of thousands of e-books ..
          Yes, too much .. But life is beautiful.
          I do not have to do everything.
          For some, the life of gold bars in a Swiss bank is life-color, some are a huge library.
          A matter of taste.

          And what about the same Zamovolta, he also writes in the article "The Phenomenon of Armored Ships" or "Supercruiser" Invincible ". The Future of the Fleet"? Find the Differences!


          The same eggs, viewed from a different angle ... what's wrong with that ??
          But you are not driven by batogs to the lesson of political information?
          Here are some artists all his life painted very similar to one another naked women
          (all naked women are very similar to each other) .. and this does not prevent us from talking about great painting ...

          Hello to lovers


          We must get used to the fact that all people are different. They have different tastes, interests and personality traits.
          Well we are not in the barracks to her God ..
          1. +10
            18 September 2015 15: 12
            Quote: Olezhek
            all naked women are very alike

            Only naked women do not say this ... and dressed - too laughing
            1. +1
              18 September 2015 18: 47
              Andrew welcome! hi drinks On the way, something new in your performance is not expected?
              1. 0
                18 September 2015 21: 54
                Greetings, Sergey! drinks
                No, I’m so ... don’t sculpt anything historically valuable feel
                1. +1
                  19 September 2015 09: 43
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  No, I’m so ... don’t sculpt anything historically valuable

                  laughing What the adversaries use!
  6. +1
    18 September 2015 07: 40
    nice article - thanks!
  7. +3
    18 September 2015 07: 41
    Well, Oleg, you yourself answered where the thousands of tons of displacement went, the load was spent. where is the citadel (13% VDI), barbets (booking rocket cellars) + a huge armored superstructure and, as a result, another thousand tons of ballast? Such an iron will sink. An aircraft carrier under 100 tons can still afford a 000 mm armored belt and 100 armored decks, and an atomic cruiser of 3 tons is already gone request what can we say about destroyers - a "trifle" of 10 tons
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 08: 23
      Quote: Tlauicol
      + huge armored superstructure

      why
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Drown such an iron

      Des moines did not drown

      3 towers by 450 tons
      152 belt and 89 mm deck
      1800 people
      GEM like Peter the Great (120 thousand hp)


      Quote: Tlauicol
      and the nuclear cruiser in 25 000 tons is no longer

      why atomic
      and why not if yes
      1. +2
        18 September 2015 08: 57
        and Zamvolt will sink - book it. Peter will drown, Ticondiroga, Atlas - yes any
        1. +1
          18 September 2015 09: 00
          Quote: Tlauicol
          and Zamvolt will sink - book it. Peter will drown, Ticondiroga, Glory

          they were not offered to book
          a modern protected ship would have a different layout

          the surrogate has an excessively high superstructure
          1. +3
            18 September 2015 09: 05
            Of course not offered. it’s ridiculous to suggest launching the iron in the sea - it’ll drown.

            "excessively high superstructure" - well, yes, probably built for beauty
            1. +1
              18 September 2015 09: 46
              Quote: Tlauicol
              "excessively high superstructure" - well, yes, probably built for beauty

              It is built to raise the horizon tracking radar to max. possible height - without violating the appearance of the stealth ship (a single pyramid - masts, antennas, flues)
              1. 0
                18 September 2015 10: 29
                suggest getting rid of the radar? or from stealth?

                reserve load on modern. there are practically no cruisers / destroyers - how do you reserve them?
                1. +3
                  18 September 2015 10: 47
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  suggest getting rid of the radar?

                  10 meters above the water is enough for the surveillance radar (like the Burke destroyer - and it's nothing, it lives) - there 100 range + km, when the height of the antenna’s suspension does not matter

                  NLC detection radar is easier to place on a balloon
                  (as a real existing JLENS system)

                  - there is no need for a superstructure the height of the Himalayas
                  - the detection range is radically increasing - from a height of at least 100 meters!

                  Now you don’t need to highlight targets for missiles, all zur with ARGSN
                  the size of the radar - like the standard AN / APS-147 of the MH-60R helicopter, which is very proud that it can notice RCC and transmit data to the ship
                  1. +1
                    18 September 2015 19: 54
                    Returning to the main intrigue, what is the% ratio of ballast to total displacement at Zamvolt and Cleveland?
                    And what are their deadweight?
    2. +6
      18 September 2015 15: 27
      "Project 1144 cruisers are protected from receiving combat damage by anti-torpedo protection, a double bottom throughout the hull, as well as local armor of vital parts of the TARK. As such, there is no belt armor on the Orlan project cruisers - the armor is in the depths of the hull, but along A thickened skin belt 1144 meters high (of which 3,5 meters above the waterline and 2,5 meter below the waterline) was laid from the bow of the ship to its stern, which plays an important role in the structural protection of the cruiser.

      TARK project 1144 "Orlan" became the first warships after the Second World War, in the design of which a sufficiently developed reservation was laid. So the engine rooms, missile cellars of the Granit complexes and the reactor compartments are protected by 100-mm from the sides (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the deck by 70-mm armor. The premises of the ship's combat information post and the main command post, which are located inside its hull at the waterline level, also received armor protection: they are covered with 100-mm side walls with a 75-mm roof and traverses. In addition, in the stern of the cruiser there is armor on the sides (70-mm) and on the roof (50-mm) of the helicopter hangar, as well as around the ammunition and aviation fuel storage. There is also a local reservation above the tiller compartments. "
      1. 0
        18 September 2015 15: 43
        It looks just like the battle cruiser’s armor, like the boxing shell on Maximilian’s armor. In order to book a modern. cruiser, it will have to be drowned or taken out all the guts
        1. +1
          18 September 2015 19: 43
          And what did the developers follow when making the decision to book a cruiser, what do you think? They thought that the reservation increases the survivability of the cruiser when exposed to the enemy, or simply thought how we would increase the displacement - and let's stupidly attach the armor so that it will not protect against anything, a real trifle, but a solid displacement will turn out, again it ( displacement) of the capitalists of the damned parrot. smile
      2. 0
        18 September 2015 16: 10
        You forgot to add what the 200 mm belt reservation was offering))) Just for some reason, all the arms developers suddenly very much exceeded the permissible mass specified in the statement of work.
  8. +1
    18 September 2015 08: 31
    I’ll read the article now, but I immediately understood who the author was and I just won a bottle of viskar from a colleague on this subject !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  9. +4
    18 September 2015 08: 37
    (yawn) Yes, we haven’t lost anything ... Oleg simply does not have information on the scales of modern weapons.
    Here, for example, the same Cousin points out http://www.scilib.narod.ru/Military/Pr1164/1164.htm:
    Only one, but very important and characteristic indicator: relative weight of weapons, i.e. "Payload", RRC pr.1164 is about 18%

    Taking into account that the standard displacement of our Atlantes is about 9300 tons (or even more), the weight of the weapon on it is no less than 1674 tons. For comparison, let's take a cruiser of the "Chapaev" class with its dozen six-inch machines in four fairly well-armored turrets, and so on. - with a standard displacement of 10 620 tons, it had 1559 tons of weapons (together with ammunition and all the control systems and combat posts) i.e. only 14,7% of the displacement.
    The main weapon of “Peter” - twenty missiles “Granite” - weigh three times less than one tower “Des Moines” (450 tons).

    There are some doubts that the Des Moines tower weighed 450 tons, but I could be wrong here. In addition, the mass of the missiles was calculated without the mass of launchers. But, for example, SJSC "Polynom" weighs about 800 tons, i.e. almost like the 2 towers of Des Moines Yes
    1. +1
      18 September 2015 08: 43
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Oleg simply does not have information about the scales of modern weapons.

      why so
      http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk57_VLS.pdf
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Considering that the standard displacement of our Atlantis is about 9300 tons

      constructive protection not at all
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In addition, the mass of missiles is calculated without the mass of launchers.

      count with PU, it will be like one tower
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      SJSC "Polynom" weighs about 800 tons

      instead of ballast in the underwater
      and mine protection
      For comparison, let's take a cruiser of the "Chapaev" class with its dozen six-inch guns in four fairly well-armored turrets, and so on. - with a standard displacement of 10 620 tons had 1559 tons of weapons (together with ammunition and all the control systems and combat posts)

      and 1536 more tons of armored shell
      1. +4
        18 September 2015 09: 05
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why wife example http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk57_VLS.pdf

        Oleg, forgive me my English, but in my opinion there is one mass of launchers - and a mustache.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        no constructive protection at all

        And who knows what is there, what is not there. There is definitely no armor in serious masses, but I would not be so categorical about other "constructive" elements (such as PMZ).
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        count with PU, it will be like one tower

        And where to get the mass of this very PU? And any cables to it? A modern ship has a much larger number of internal communications than ships of WWII. The same anti-roll systems on modern ships are much more perfect (and perhaps harder?) Than on older ships, but this is a plus for using weapons.
        What is heavier - the “mirror” of the active HEADLAND or the armored director of the Mk.37 fire control system with a pair of radars (16 tons)?

        It is possible that the HEADLIGHTER is just heavier :))) I already cited the weight of the polynomial - the entire system of the LMS of the WWII cruiser was unlikely to be pulled by that much. And who knows how much Aegis's posts weigh?
        And the size of the crew? On modern ships, it is much lower than on old ones, automation ... And did you consider the mass of this automation?
        Oleg, well, you don’t have the data to calculate the masses of a modern warship. I, by the way, also. So why alarm for the whole tyrnet? Do you think modern designers are worse than us, so smart and beautiful? laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        and 1536 more tons of armored shell

        This is the 26 bis project, and Chapaev had even more - 2339 tons, and this without the rotating part of the towers
        1. 0
          18 September 2015 09: 22
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          but there is in my opinion one mass of launchers - and a mustache.

          what else did you expect there?
          you wanted to know the weight of modern weapons
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Armor in serious masses there is not exactly

          those. 1500 tons load article freed
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And where to get the mass of this very PU? And any cables to it?

          you have a reserve of almost 300 tons (450 left for granites from 150)
          there you can’t get off with cables
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The same quiescent control systems on modern ships are much more perfect (and perhaps harder?) Than on older ships

          on a modern ship, each nail is lighter a couple of times
          as an example

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It is possible that the PAR is just heavier

          afar total 4-6
          WWII radar cruisers had 10 pieces, and even with fur. drives and ballistic armor
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And who knows how much Aegis's posts weigh?

          google elementary
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Has anyone considered the mass of this automation?

          a lot of 1200 sailors, their beds, showers, refrigerators, desalination and grub
          do not want to count
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Do you think modern designers are worse than us, so smart and beautiful?

          they build ships with high superstructures. because it’s more convenient for them and there are no special requirements for this item
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and Chapaev had even more - 2339 tons, and this without the rotating part of the towers

          and now it has become a free reserve!
          1. +2
            18 September 2015 09: 51
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            what else did you expect there? You wanted to know the weight of modern weapons

            Yes. And so I’m very interested in how much not only the launcher weighs, but also the necessary communications to it, how much are all sorts of mechanisms that serve the automation, and how much are the control posts and other and other ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            total afar 4-6 cruisers WWII radars were pieces 10, and even with fur. drives and ballistic armor

            So what? At the same Chapaev, two full-fledged KDP GK + two stabilized posts for ZA plus all sorts of other viziers weighed as much as 162 tons. A HOOK polynomial - 800 tons. 800 tons, Karl ... that is, pooh ... Oleg! laughing
            The joke is that, for example, I would not be surprised at all if the entire Aegis system, even without starting ones, has a weight of 1-1,5 thousand tons
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            google elementary

            No data, Oleg.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            you don’t want to count the mass of 1200 sailors, their beds, showers, refrigerators, desalination plants and grub

            Why count them there? Tons 400, approximately. At the same time, more comfort is provided for modern ships than on older ones.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            they build ships with high superstructures. because it’s more convenient for them and there are no special requirements for this item

            Oleg, they build ships with high superstructures in order to place antenna posts higher to the horizon :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            on a modern ship, each nail is lighter a couple of times

            The example is clearly unsuccessful - 30-40 and 25-30 or even 12-15 and 11-15 do not correlate two times :)
            1. 0
              18 September 2015 10: 06
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              but also the necessary communications to her

              wires obviously weigh more than six-inch barbets
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              A HOOK polynomial - 800 tons. Xnumx tons, Karl ...

              TARKR is larger than Des Moines at 6000 tons, Karl

              about the polynomial wrote above - Gus instead of ballast in the underwater
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              if the entire Aegis system, even without taking into account launchers, has a weight of 1-1,5 thousand tons

              then the tikoderog will tip over

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              No data, Oleg.

              The SPY-1B was first installed on the Princeton CG-59 cruiser. It has lightweight antennas (3,6 vs 5,4 t per array) Each antenna has 4 350 radiating elements. A more compact cable system made it possible to reduce the size of the module to 2 elements (total 2175 modules by 2 elements in each [4]). Thanks to the use of VLSI, the number of equipment rooms decreased from 11 to 5, the weight of the equipment from 6,7 to 4,9 tons, the number of typical replacement elements from 3 600 to 1 600. Significantly improved characteristics of the signal processor.

              here is the backlight radar - http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ss_aegis.html
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Oleg, they build ships with high superstructures in order to place antenna posts higher to the horizon

              Well, it’s so convenient for them, because no specials. no requirements for this
              the only task is to put the NLC detection radar as high as possible
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              11-15 do not match twice

              in our case, the difference is not 30, but 50 years
              1. +2
                18 September 2015 10: 23
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                about the polynomial wrote above - Gus instead of ballast in the underwater

                Oleg, you again missed the most important thing. It seems to you that some kind of cables, computers and other antennas are ugh, they weigh almost nothing. And the mass of the GAC proves to us that these "antennas / cables" can weigh a LOT. Much more than the actual means of destruction. What will a pair of torpedo tubes weigh there? Tons 60? 100? But the equipment that allows you to hear the submarine and attack it with torpedoes weighs 800 tons. Hence the moral - modern weapons control systems in their mass can be multiples of the actual weight of the launchers. And you don't know its mass
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Thanks to the use of VLSI, the number of equipment rooms decreased from 11 to 5, the weight of the equipment from 6,7 to 4,9 tons, the number of typical replacement elements from 3 600 to 1 600

                Which is only part of the mass of equipment related to the radar itself.
                1. 0
                  18 September 2015 10: 31
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  can weigh very much

                  far lessthan weapons, SLAs, mechanisms and constructive protection of WWII cruisers

                  which is proved by the possibility of their placement in 20-meter "towers"



                  The equipment and mechanisms have nothing to do with it. The thing is the layout of modern ships

                  1. +1
                    18 September 2015 12: 13
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    much less than weapons, control systems, mechanisms and constructive protection of the cruisers of the VMV, which is proved by the possibility of their placement in 20-meter "towers"

                    So who told you that they are fully accommodated there? :)))
                    The main components (subsystems) of the Aegis multifunctional weapon system
                    (the constituent elements of the ZRK of the same name are marked with numbers in circles):
                    1 - helicopter subsystem LEMPS;
                    2 - equipment of the helicopters subsystem LEMPS MKZ;
                    3 - radar detection of air (AN / SPS-49) and surface (AN / SPS-55) targets;
                    4 - identification station <friend or foe> AN / UPX-29;
                    5 - subsystem EW AN / SLQ-32 (v);
                    6 - navigation equipment;
                    7 - Hydraulic stations (AN / SQS-53 and SQR-19 or SQQ-89);
                    8-terminal equipment of a digital radio link (LINK-11);
                    9 - automated command and control subsystem (Mk1);
                    10 is an automated subsystem of coordinated control of ship weapons complexes (Мk1);
                    11 - radar control unit with PAR (AN / SPY-1);
                    12 - antenna and transceiver part of the multifunction radar (AN / SPY-1);
                    13 - automated testing subsystem for the operation, search and localization of faults (Mk545);
                    14 - information display subsystem;
                    15 - radio equipment;
                    16 - digital radio link terminals (LINK-4A);
                    17 - launcher of the passive jamming subsystem <Super R60K> (MkZ6);
                    18 - the automated subsystem of artillery fire control (Mk86);
                    19 - automated fire control subsystem of the Aegis air defense missile system (Mk99);
                    20 - launchers for ship HP, SAM and PLUR (Mk26 or UVP Mk41);
                    21 - automated subsystem of fire control KR "Tomahawk";
                    22 - automated fire control subsystem PKR "Harpoon";
                    23 - anti-aircraft artillery complex "Volcano-phalanx" (Mk15);
                    24 - an automated anti-submarine weapon fire control subsystem (Mk116)

                    And what, everyone is in the "house"? :)
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The equipment and mechanisms have nothing to do with it. The thing is the layout of modern ships

                    No role at all. Oleg, if a ship weighs 10 thousand tons, but in your hull / armament / chassis / radars / mechanisms weigh (conditionally) 6 thousand tons, then the remaining 4 thousand tons is ballast laughing
                    1. 0
                      18 September 2015 21: 47
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And what, is everyone in the "house"?

                      everything except weapons in the tower
                      83 antennas, radar and GAS equipment, command center with consoles

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      No role at all.

                      not even funny
                      especially from you
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      10 thousand tons, but in your case / armament / chassis / radar / mechanisms

                      weigh (conditionally) 6 thousand tons, then the remaining 4 thousand tons is ballast

                      thousand 2-3
                      how else can you compensate for the overturning moment from the "tower" and the effect of wind loads

                      Oklahoma City went through another backyard period when extensive weight loss measures were implemented. Some antennas were relocated from high on the midship of the radar tower to lower the position on the ship, and the SPS-39 3D radar was removed. Aerial observation positions on after felling above the rocket house have been removed. . Even with these changes, the ship was still fragile close to unstable. In the end, 1200 tons of ballast was added.
                      at full w / and Oklahoma-CLG in 15 000 tons
                      1. 0
                        21 September 2015 08: 17
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        everything except weapons in the tower

                        Well, yes - weapons, ammunition, ASG and equipment to it, anti-torpedo protection post, etc. In addition, the scheme does not somehow show the generators that generate a bunch of electricity for all this grandeur.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        thousands of 2-3 how else do you compensate for the overturning moment from the "tower" and the effect of wind loads

                        And why? :) Oleg, designers should not be considered crazy - when designing a new ship, they are quite capable of placing the weight of the ship so that there is no need to report thousands of tons of ballast.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In the end, 1200 tons of ballast was added.

                        An example is incorrect - they took a light cruiser and rebuilt it greatly, as a result of which the entire mass load "floated". If the same cruiser had been designed from scratch (and not rebuilt by Cleveland), there would have been no problems.
                      2. 0
                        21 September 2015 08: 40
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, yes - weapons, ammunition,

                        which are lighter than the towers of WWII cruisers
                        and placed in the below deck
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Gas and equipment to it

                        Gas equipment is in the superstructure, on the scheme №7
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        when designing a new ship, they are quite capable of placing the weight of the ship so that there is no need to report thousands of tons of ballast.

                        I agree, the logic failed

                        While maintaining the same displacement and ballast valuesas with old cruisers, but without heavy weapons and armor, you can erect a "tower" of any height.

                        And about thousands of tons
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        antennas / cables "can weigh a LOT.

                        Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
                        The radar and control system of the S-400 complex is mounted, if I am not mistaken, on 2 MZKT-7930 and 1 Ural-5323. The total carrying capacity of 3 cars is 60 tons. AN / TPY-2 GBR of the THAAD system as a whole (together with the chassis) fits into the "Hercules" (20 tons max). Aegis is not an S-400, of course, but it seems that there should not be any talk of thousands of tons.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      18 September 2015 09: 48
      I want to support. If only the mass of missiles is taken from "Peter", then for de'Moin it is necessary to take only the mass of shells. If, for the second, the mass of the entire gun mount with a turret is given, then for the first ship it is necessary to bring the mass of the entire complex.
      2400 shells will weigh a lot. And here it is completely impossible to silence the issue of efficiency. For example, the average ammunition consumption for hitting a target at long range. Let's say at a distance of 4/5 from the maximum.
      1. 0
        18 September 2015 12: 17
        The equipment and mechanisms have nothing to do with it. The thing is the layout of modern ships

        Oleg, is this the real size ratio of ships?
        1. 0
          18 September 2015 21: 18
          Quote: Sukhoi
          Oleg, is this the real size ratio of ships?

          Yes
    3. PPD
      0
      18 September 2015 11: 29
      Just about Plus, domestic missiles always weighed be healthy. Because of the weight, they could not always cram what they wanted. Enough to recall the history of the emergence of ESM 956 and BOD.
  10. +9
    18 September 2015 08: 50
    You can accept or not accept these ideas, you can call the author stubborn, but what you can’t take away - it’s interesting to read, and the desire to argue with the author only proves interest.

    Subjectively, I like it. Each article by Oleg is covered with history, the smoke of battles, something chivalrous, and in comparison our cynical age somehow loses. ))) What are the similar feelings as from Grishkovets with his "Dreadnought". You know, it is much more interesting to read than another insanity about whether Ukraine will live another winter without gas ...
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 08: 56
      Quote: Azzi
      but here’s what you won’t take away - it’s interesting to read, and the desire to argue with the author only proves interest.


      If you look at the number of minuses (and therefore - those who disagree with the opinion) to Kaptsov's articles, then any sane person would think that it is time to change something in his approach to the topic. Or leave the topic alone. In a dispute with Kaptsov, truth cannot be born
      1. +5
        18 September 2015 09: 08
        Quote: Delta
        In a dispute with Kaptsov, truth cannot be born

        People were sitting in a stuffy, cramped, smoky room.
        They argued. They gave birth to Truth.
        Truth is born. She sat, listened and left.
        And people argued and argued ...
      2. +1
        18 September 2015 17: 29
        Delta

        The number minus does not mean a lack of attention.

        And the main idea of ​​the article is about violations of the design of the ship. Perhaps this is due to TTX necessity. As is shown, for discussion and comparison.

        Plus article.
  11. +2
    18 September 2015 08: 52
    Twenty five again !! I would argue with everything, but I have to choose potatoes: win These are all the layouts from the sandbox !! Minus!!!
    For that matter, then you need to read ALL arguments, and not just those that are convenient for denying or proving something hi
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +1
    18 September 2015 09: 15
    Amateur article. If the author could have made such protection in a given displacement, then they would have done, although not a fact. Load items depend on many factors. On the warship there are no extra cubic meters of volume and tons of displacement, as it was during WWII, and now.
    I get the impression that the author simply follows the principle ... I love the sea from the coast, and the ships in the picture ... maybe this is such a trolling. Although, the author write, what else would we discuss. Just be more realistic, it just seems so ... that we should build a house, we’ll draw a living ... It’s worth at least visiting a modern ship to understand all these author’s arguments “a spherical horse, in a vacuum”.
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 09: 28
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      It’s worth at least visiting a modern ship

      at the same time and on the old
  14. +1
    18 September 2015 09: 15
    in my opinion, if you make a ship with constructive protection, then at a certain point everything will rest in placing modern air defense with all the infrastructure, it's not a 30-mm machine gun on deck, saturation of the ship with missiles has led to a modern look, where you have to compromise
  15. 0
    18 September 2015 10: 45
    Yeah. A warship is a weapon, not a tourist ship.
  16. +2
    18 September 2015 10: 53
    No, well, the author is clearly progressing! What an intrigue! At least in the beginning ...
    I read the headline - Kaptsov! No one else! bully
    I read the beginning - it cannot be ... what
    I read further - ffuuu, of course, Kaptsov! Who would doubt ... lol
    So as a steampunk fixation - very, very! hi
  17. PPD
    +1
    18 September 2015 11: 06
    All this is great. But they did not think about what percentage of the main caliber hit Des Moines and Peter the Great.
    For battleships, 3% is already cool. And what to compare, so to the end. I don’t know the percentage of Peter, but I suspect much higher. Well, very much in full-time meeting. If De Monde or Cleveland survives until he sees his opponent. Will the armor help if 5 Granites get to Cleveland? Maybe it will help, but I won’t feel like fighting anymore. Granites are used from such a distance that neither Des Moines nor the battleship Mikas will see anyone for sure.
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 17: 43
      Sailing is sure to sink +)
      3 hits, swim further.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkf3ogkFxo#t=105
  18. 0
    18 September 2015 11: 17
    Do you have a 30mm slot machine? Is there a 57mm gun?
  19. -2
    18 September 2015 11: 28
    Connected experts. How many articles do professionals and know-all have.
    Take and write an answer, a rebuke, a devastating article, how to whine and put cons.
    Easy and fun to read! A plus. The issues raised in the article do occur. Technology has taken a major step forward, but hardware implementation is lame. Sometimes it seems that the military-industrial complex stopped somewhere in the 50-60s. Well, maybe with a touch of electronics and stealth paranoia in the style of James Bond films.
    About many things it seems that the designers are not even aware.
    Fighters and designers are unable to look beyond the horizon of technology. While designing and building technology, again the product is ahead of the decade by at least.
    Plus “Zamvolta” is an attempt to catch up with this time. We have no such attempts so far. With an aircraft carrier painfully pushing. It is necessary, not necessary, to build, not to build. And so we all sit on the jerk. And all in vain! )))
  20. +4
    18 September 2015 11: 44
    An interesting attempt at analysis. Alas, hopeless. For a full-fledged analysis, you need a detailed summary of weight loads - and this documentation is from the "Sov. Secret" section - and a breakdown by "enlarged" ones gives a completely distorted picture. The devil, as usual, is in the details - but just the details we don't know.

    However, I tend to trust constructors rather than similar "analyzers".
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 21: 55
      Quote: Taoist
      This is the documentation from the "Sov. Secret" section

      any system
      everything is on the internet

      ask what exactly interests - type of radar, UVP cell, gun - I will try to find if you want to check

      Threat. the weight of modern missiles, radars and systems will always be less than weapons and systems of WWII ships
      Quote: Taoist
      . The devil, as usual, is in the details - but we don’t know the details.

      Devil in the layout

      Look again at the photo of the Ticonderoga tower

      or flagship Ashigara:


      It is the lightness of modern antennas (and the allocated load reserves after removing artillery and armor) that allows designers set them so high above the water. What for? It’s more convenient for them. The higher the better for the radar. after all, there are no other requirements and restrictions on this score.
      1. +1
        19 September 2015 14: 09
        Well, count the height of the "directors" on your favorite battleships. Or the weight of "combat mars" with guns and elevators. For optics, placement as high as possible is even more critical than for radar. But with the advent of aviation and the ability to "raise your eyes" regardless of ship structures ... I'm afraid that you again wishful thinking.

        Have you seen the dreadnought 2050 concept? They generally refused to add some superstructures - replacing the UAV. So "the dog rummaged around here" but obviously not as deep as you think.

        The rejection of full-scale booking is primarily due to the increased power and accuracy of weapons. Everything that flew to the side was guaranteed to hit. So why fence a vegetable garden? That is why the evolution of ships is moving towards a decrease in visibility so that it becomes more difficult to issue target designations. To strengthen the active means of defense of air defense and missile defense (to prevent the enemy from reaching the side, because if they let the armor do not help ...) and to increase survivability - duplication of systems, constructive protection, automated systems to combat flooding and fires. Such is the feint. However, all this has been explained to you more than once ... you stubbornly like that "Stirlitz" stand on your own ... God help you.
        1. 0
          19 September 2015 18: 50
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, count the height of the "directors" on your favorite battleships.

          LK could allow all
          They have a displacement of tens of thousands of tons

          But we are talking about cruisers
          Cleveland there was no tall superstructure from side to side
          Quote: Taoist
          For optics, placement as high as possible is even more critical than for radar

          Yes, I do not want to

          NLC detection radar
          Quote: Taoist
          There, they generally refused od add-ons - replacing the UAV

          My version is a balloon, like the JLENS system
          Quote: Taoist
          The refusal of a full-scale reservation is due primarily to the increased power and accuracy of weapons.

          was due to the weakness of air defense in the 50-60 of the twentieth century.
          Quote: Taoist
          Everything that flew to the side is considered guaranteed to hit.

          Even the wreckage of downed anti-ship missiles?
          (hello USS Antrim)
          Quote: Taoist
          To strengthening active defense systems

          How much they got stronger at Zamvolt

          With modern destroyers, even the Phalanxes are removed, due to the low efficiency of such systems
  21. +5
    18 September 2015 12: 10
    It turns out interestingly: infantryman's "armor protection" is growing, armored combat vehicles are growing, helicopters are growing, even in bombers (Su-34) it has appeared! And on ships, for some reason, no ... Probably, the time has not come yet! And the Author, as usual, is a prophet misunderstood by his contemporaries! good
  22. +3
    18 September 2015 12: 26
    Oleg is simply too lazy to read serious literature. For example V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky, "The Navy of the USSR 1945-1991", p. 446. Table "Load of the masses of some warships of the Soviet Navy".
    Given: armored cruiser ave. 68bis and BOD project 61. Question: Which of these ships has a higher percentage of the weight of the hull (with armor and electrical equipment) of the standard displacement?
    You will be wildly laughing, but the answer is for the 61 zero-armored BOD. Do you know why? Because ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT!
    1. 0
      18 September 2015 12: 46
      And Abramovich’s yacht is even higher. Electrical equipment is ... :)))
    2. 0
      18 September 2015 22: 03
      Quote: Alex_59
      Because ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT!

      "electricity" (s)

      Quote: Alex_59
      Which of these ships has a higher percentage of hull weight (with armor and electrical equipment) of the standard displacement?

      come on in numbers
      Quote: Alex_59
      but the answer is with the 61 zero-armored BOD. Do you know why?

      because the technology and radio technology of the late 50's

      despite the number of antennas and the steepness of the radars, the firing range of the air defense systems did not exceed 20 km
      launchers are also funny and archaic. beam type, above deck

      Despite the fact that even with such squalor, he hardly surpassed in terms of ratio the armored cruiser of the WWII era (weapons + armor / displacement against radar and weapons of the BOD)
  23. 0
    18 September 2015 12: 52
    To me, "Zamvolt" also reminds me of Khrushchev's attempt to abandon artillery and replace it with missiles. Of course, he was not left completely without guns, and the task of shelling the coast was not initially set for him, but ... The niche of using such a ship is very narrow.
  24. 0
    18 September 2015 13: 03
    I do not understand anything in the navy that goes beyond the horizons of an ordinary person with good erudition, but reading Oleg's articles (well thought out and competently written, this is a plus), I ask myself only one question "from childhood" - who will win in direct clash, Zamwalt or Cleveland? The answer to it will give a complete "stop" to all other arguments, therefore I ask for clarifications, short and unambiguous.
  25. 0
    18 September 2015 14: 04
    Someone can tell the layout of the artillery and missile cruisers with a non-nuclear power plant indicating the weight in tons or a percentage of the total displacement:

    - team with supplies
    - fuel supply
    - ammunition
    - power point
    - artillery mounts
    - rocket launchers
    - radar equipment
    - housing reservation
    - housing.

    The weight / share of everything else (mechanical, electrical, cable and electronic equipment, local reservations, etc.) will be determined by the residual principle.

    Thank you.
  26. PPD
    0
    18 September 2015 14: 12
    The comparison is not entirely correct. Zamvolt is a very specific thing. Not intended for fights with their own kind. Many in the United States are critical of him, and this is, in principle, correct. In addition, it is believed that they will walk with Arly Burke. Zamvolt has the main emphasis on coastal strikes. As I understand the idea: sneak in secret so that the radars are not noticed. To cut down the most dangerous tomahawks, and to beat unarmed. And Cleveland can be cut down by aviation. In addition, on the Let the helicopter is, if that ..
    1. +3
      18 September 2015 18: 13
      Yes, how did you get it. You have been given an EXAMPLE. And let's not push a ship without air defense and anti-ship missiles of the 40s with a ship of the 21st century.

      May come from other considerations?
      That for armor with a thickness of 200 mm will now be equal to 540 mm during WWII. But that is not all. We make a separation and put there a combined reservation (reflecting plates?) And dynamic protection against pre-charges. Kevlar, ceramics. In short, everything that, for example, is used on the T14 tank and armor is the same best steel in the world at the moment.

      And what do we get as a result:
      Cons
      1. The mass of the ship has increased (they have been living for 50 years, 1-2 modernization), with the same armament (than its non-armored brother).
      2. Larger displacement = greater visibility.
      3. The price of one ship will be higher (although not so much).
      4. Larger ship more operating costs.
      pros
      1. Increased stability and combat survivability.
      2. Opponents have to build monsters of anti-ship missiles (weighing 5-10 tons, Hello all anti-ship missiles of the USSR)
      3. On medium anti-ship missiles (2-3 tons) it will be necessary to set the cumulative warhead as on Soviet anti-ship missiles. But the ship is not a tank, it’s not only necessary to penetrate it with combined armor, but also to drown, which is a very big problem even if you burned 5-6 meters after the combined reservation in depth, the hole in the arm is thick. Or put already armor-piercing warheads, reducing the mass of explosives from 400kg to 20kg. A blast of 20 kg inside the ship is not a blast of 400 kg, it is necessary to stuff literally.
      4. We look at item number 3. As a result, the enemy needs to build new ships, monsters carrying heavy anti-ship missiles (hi Granit and the USSR) with a tenth aboard, a maximum of 20 anti-ship missiles and all. Or rearm and load instead of one RCC per cell. One anti-ship missile system for 4 cells. And if you have for example a ship with 80 launchers. Of these, for example, 20 were RCC. The remaining 60 are under air defense.
      If you need to load heavy anti-ship missiles and have 20 missiles. Then you are without air defense from the word at all. Or you want to leave your air defense at 60 missiles. Then instead of 20 missiles, you will have only 5 pieces. This reduces the chance of breaking through the air defense zone of an enemy ship altogether. "Fork in the eye" so to speak +)
      1. +1
        18 September 2015 19: 26
        Quote: Kvazar
        On medium anti-ship missiles (2-3 tons) it will be necessary to set the cumulative warhead as on Soviet anti-ship missiles. But the ship is not a tank, it’s not only necessary to penetrate it with combined armor, but also to drown, which is a very big problem even if you burned 5-6 meters after the combined reservation in depth, the hole in the arm is thick. Or put already armor-piercing warheads, reducing the mass of explosives from 400kg to 20kg.

        Or to develop a seeker so that the anti-ship missile is guided to places with the least strong protection (optical / radar guidance with target identification by the "portrait" from the database and homing not at the maximum reflected signal, but at specific points of the identified target). Because 540 mm for the entire side and for the entire deck cannot be extended.
        Or to hit the underwater part of the ship: create an anti-ship torpedo rocket - a combination of a launch vehicle with a detachable homing torpedo warhead (KSSh - sometimes they come back).
        1. +1
          19 September 2015 11: 01
          this is not realistic, all missiles and missiles operate according to the "at least hit" system. we and the author say that carrying modern armor based on the best developments will reduce the sinking rate of the ship by orders of magnitude. The problem with ships is that they are expensive and stalled when compared to tanks on the concept, the armor does not hold anyway, then why do we need armor? this is the end 40 beginning 50 level in the tank building. After the first applications, it was abandoned. And they forgot it like a bad dream. As well as about purely rocket tanks. In fact, if we carry out parallels with the tank structure, all this has already passed. And modern ships are BMPs with anti-tank guns, not tanks) As for the torpedoes. Read at your leisure how many torpedoes the Yamato withstood in the last battle. and how many bombs. and drank only when the bk pulled. No modern ship can handle that much. And the overly expensive ship will not be repaired, but will go to the bottom.
      2. 0
        19 September 2015 00: 44
        At the expense of the hole in the hand from the cumulative warhead. Cumulative - they are very different. Now, as an evil, I can’t find the source, but I have repeatedly read that at one of our aeroballistic anti-ship missiles a high-explosive cumulative warhead left a hole 13 meters deep and 22 square meters in the target. meter. True, the warhead of kilograms is 500. And around this hole, I believe, there was not much intact, undeformed and unburned.
        1. +1
          19 September 2015 11: 20
          this is bch granite. air half-blasting. penetrated 12 meters into the ship's hull. was created to defeat the LUG (battleship strike group of the USA) with battleships of 40 years as a strike base and AUGs that have 150mm armor in German. Only even the effect of penetration by modern means can be reduced to 3-4 meters for combined bookings from modern means of protection. If at the beginning of the 50s only one tank in the world was holding an 85mm shell, now it’s calmly holding 125mm and partly 152mm, but now the godfather is far different than in 50 years. And the 152mm ATGM on itself is already a problem to drag. They are expensive, heavy. That is, the reservation of ships increases its survivability. Where previously you needed 540mm armor, today it gives the same protection of 200mm. When using modern combined armor, on any ship above 15k tons (an unarmored analogue will have a displacement of 8-10k tons with the same weapons) gives an obvious advantage in survival. The loss of any ship in a local conflict in the northern world is a tragedy for the country. Plus, not all RCCs can be drowned. We immediately discard the lungs, the average problem is on the sound and they will need much more, only we have heavy ones. Others do not have them, RCCs with a 20t launcher can not be shoved into just about any boat, they have already passed with Granites. and in any case they will be few.
  27. 0
    18 September 2015 15: 29
    I always read with interest the articles of Oleg Kuptsov in VO. And this article is no exception. By the way, issues of increasing the security of ships were raised by competent sailors from all over the world, including Soviet ones, long before the appearance of Zamvolt. After all, in fact, it is not a very greyhound if the side of a ship stuffed above the roof with the most complex weapons systems, the price of which is many millions of rubles or Baksiks, can be pierced by a frail projectile, a rocket, or even a large-caliber bullet. And such ships are now dark in the sea of ​​Akiyan.
    1. +2
      18 September 2015 15: 54
      Quote: gregor6549
      I always read articles by Oleg Kuptsov in VO with interest.

      Каptsova!
      For read Kуptsova is highly discouraged even by people with a stable psyche ... smile
      1. 0
        18 September 2015 16: 02
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For reading Kuptsov is highly discouraged even by people with a stable psyche

        drinks
        Personally, I did not master. Kuptsov is on the other side of good and evil, Nietzsche is resting laughing
        1. 0
          18 September 2015 17: 52
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Personally, I did not master. Kuptsov is on the other side of good and evil, Nietzsche is resting

          You have not read it yet correspondence between Engels and Kautsky Kuptsov’s discussion with Shein (Litl_bro). Kuptsov’s untidy thoughts (in combination with his aplomb), issued in response to quotes from the docks from Litl_bro, are a complete removal of the brain. smile
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        18 September 2015 16: 52
        Of course, Kaptsova, this is my computer so very clever, all the time trying to correct what I write in my own way am
    2. 0
      19 September 2015 09: 18
      pierced by frail projectile, rocket, and even a large-caliber bullet


      Pro too: heavy machine gun or projectiles from small-caliber auto-cannon and hello ...
      How THAT is not serious ...

      Kindergarten..pants with straps.

      About "frail missiles" is not fully understood.
  28. +3
    18 September 2015 16: 05
    SWEET_SIXTEEN (3) RU Today, 09:28 ↑ New
    Quote: Fotoceva62
    “It’s worth at least visiting a modern ship”
    at the same time and on the old
    For 30 years he visited a variety of ships and vessels, Don workshop (former Murzescu, Romanian minzag), Em pr 30 bis, pr 56 (all modifications), pr. 57, pr. 61, pr 68, both Moscow, “Baku” aka “Gorshkov”, 1135,1134b (Kerch, Azov, Ochakov). And not only visited, but worked at the lower classes, urgent project 30 bis “Perfect”. Childhood, too, but Bati has it on board. I don’t mention a trifle like minesweepers and IPC and PL. As they wrote in the specifications ... he knows and loves maritime business ...
  29. +3
    18 September 2015 18: 03
    And I am grateful to Oleg for his materials. Yes, it is not indisputable in fact, but it is read and perceived easily, since. the author uses quite clear comparisons.
    And so, let a little bile. wink The overwhelming majority of regulars usually appeal for a return to serious topics, weapons and equipment ... But here's the problem! It is this same majority that usually sits on topics dedicated to Schenevmerla, Nezginela, Arabs of refugee appearance and other politicized junk, alas. But Oleg's articles - take it as you want: at least as trolling, at least obstinacy, at least blinkeredness - they gather a lot of people in a dispute / discussion and in the comments sometimes they look through links to interesting materials, documents, etc. - that is, what not to see or find on those very "serious" topics. I still have fresh in my memory a wonderful series of articles by Kirill Ryabov about special underwater means - with the incredible quality of the material, a maximum of 10-15 people participated in the discussion. crying
    So, Oleg, write more, provoke, incite and stir - thanks to these materials you can still follow quite interesting, if not always ethical discussions!
    From SW. hi
    1. +1
      18 September 2015 20: 25
      Quote: Raphael_83
      But Oleg's articles - take it as you want: at least as trolling, at least obstinacy, at least blinkeredness - they gather a lot of people in a dispute / discussion and in the comments sometimes they look through links to interesting materials, documents, etc. - that is, what not to see or find on those very "serious" topics. I still have fresh in my memory a wonderful series of articles by Kirill Ryabov about special underwater means - with the incredible quality of the material, a maximum of 10-15 people participated in the discussion


      sites-murzilok a dime a dozen. "VO" was somehow always positioned more seriously than a collection of jokes and heifers
  30. +1
    18 September 2015 19: 35
    > To compensate for wind loads and overturning moment from such a "structure", in other words, to maintain the metacentric height within normal limits, the creators of "Zamvolt" forcedly spent the lion's share of displacement on ballast.

    something that reminded me ...

    Oh yes, the victory of technology over common sense! ©
  31. +1
    18 September 2015 20: 08
    I liked the article and I think the author is in many ways right, but he can also underestimate the overall dimensions of modern electronics and electrics. smile ... In general, one gets the impression that the designer of warships perfectly understood and understand the importance of armor and that the truly valuable units of the fleet were just armored (aircraft carriers, for example, or such cruisers as Project 1144). Now, when the likelihood of a nuclear conflict has decreased and wars of the type "quickly landed 16-20 anti-ship missiles at the enemy with 2-3 nuclear submunitions and wait for a response nuclear trick" are already unlikely, then more and more people are thinking about armoring ships.
  32. LMaksim
    0
    18 September 2015 20: 37
    Good comparison. That's just one 380mm or 406mm shell per side and all this modern splendor will sink in a couple of seconds. In general, it is a pity that modern ships were left without armor.
  33. +1
    19 September 2015 08: 30
    Are there many carriers of 380-406 mm shells in the sea now? Although I am a supporter of armor on modern ships, I must take into account the likely enemy and not examples of disasters at sea during WWII.
  34. -1
    19 September 2015 09: 14
    And why don't you Oleg tell the applauding public that during these events the Italians lost three heavy cruisers (the best cruisers of the "Washington period") and two battleships, not counting a bunch of ships damaged and abandoned for a long time ?!


    So separately singled out.
    Colleagues - it is necessary then to SEPARATELY to tell about the Italians and the Italian fleet.
    As Mussolini said when he was arrested - "the only successful operation of the Italian army"

    Battleship / Cruiser is ABSOLUTELY useless without an intelligent command.
    Without the brave, competent, disciplined sailors - pipe business.

    Stop torturing Italy.
  35. +1
    19 September 2015 21: 23
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    Are there many carriers of 380-406 mm shells in the sea now? Although I am a supporter of armor on modern ships, I must take into account the likely enemy and not examples of disasters at sea during WWII.

    You have been led away from common sense in reasoning on the topic "Which is stronger - armor or a projectile?"
    Strong veteran - one of the best cruisers of the Second World War, built in the number of 29 units. Leaving astern hundreds of thousands of fiery miles and capable of making a hundred rounds per minute of the main caliber!
    On the other side of the scale - the load floating with perverted articles, in which the weapon accounts for only a tiny part of the displacement, and there is nothing left at all for constructive protection.

    And we need to think about something else - the author proposes to abandon any systems inherent in warships, and at the expense of the "freed" mass to increase the armor? NO! He simply talks about "I wish I could attach thicker armor", and in what way - smiling slyly, bypasses, not giving options. Typical fan throw!
    Finally, new trends in shipbuilding:
    - automation and mechanization of most processes (belt conveyors along and across the whole body);
    ... - automatic systems ... etc. small but useful things. Well combined with comfortable conditions for the crew on board (gyms, fitness, restaurant meals).
    Etc.
    Perhaps this is correct. But still ... From the smoke of sea battles, silhouettes of super-armed and protected ships of the past appear. And maybe when building the next Zamvolta, it is worth reconsidering some priorities in the direction of constructive protection, weapons and ammunition?

    That is, everything is fine on modern ships, but will it be better with armor? And to what ratio would it be better if 2-3 were added thousands of tons of steel? What nafig power supply, what is the struggle for the economy of the masses? Armor on board! We’ll book the entire dry dock. Or pour concrete. There will be a ship of zero rank.
  36. +1
    19 September 2015 23: 51
    There are examples when the struggle for extra speed knots led to the loss of entire fleets when hit by a typhoon (without the influence of the enemy) and when the pursuit of technological bells and whistles in the form of aluminum-magnesium alloys in superstructures led to the death of a modern ship from being hit by a single unexploded anti-ship missile. about the "Eagles" it is said about the presence of constructive armor protection within reasonable limits according to the views of the 80s and there is not a single comment criticizing such an "anachronism", and the sailors serving on them are calmer from the consciousness that there is no pirate at sea with 14,5- mm CPV on its schooner will not dare to try to "lower"!
    And one can argue: what is more important to carry -2000 tons of armor or a couple of turbines with fuel for full speed?
  37. mvg
    0
    20 September 2015 02: 53
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Serg65
    September 23, 1941 in Kronstadt, the battleship "Marat" lay down on the ground from being hit by two aerial bombs

    1. Marat is no battleship
    the weakest dreadnought of the First World War, completely obsolete by 1941

    2. There was one bomb, 1500 kg

    And what is surprising about all this?

    LC "Vittorio" did not sink from two similar bombs. And it didn't even hurt much - a month of repair

    There were several bombs, but it is true that it was badly damaged by one, 1000 kg. 1500 "piece" would not have raised .. Biography of the most famous German pilot. "Pilot Stuff"
  38. +1
    20 September 2015 10: 36
    If I understand correctly, the author has the only claim to Zumvolt -
    superstructure tower too high. And he offers to place
    antennas / radars / afar on some external systems: like a balloon, for example.
    I quite like this idea. You can "tie" to the ship of the future
    (to give to his full obedience) several vehicles: UAV, aircraft / s vertical
    take-off, balloons, where to place (with duplication) all means of early warning.
    And remove the tower and take its place extra. air deck with platforms.

    Then "Zumvolt-2" will outwardly turn into a mixture of an aircraft carrier and a surfaced submarine.
    What is required.
    1. +1
      20 September 2015 17: 52
      like an aerostat, for example.
      I quite like this idea. You can "tie" to the ship of the future
      (to give to his full obedience) several vehicles: UAV, aircraft / s vertical
      takeoff, balloons,
      as if in a mixture of aircraft carrier and surfaced submarine


      Well, when a person has a sense of humor ... smile
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. 0
    20 September 2015 18: 01
    I welcome any attempt at honest analysis
  41. 0
    20 September 2015 19: 56
    And it was interesting to me to read this comparative analysis of NK of different centuries! Something is debatable. Well, I urge the critics themselves to try their pen in similar fiction tongue
  42. 0
    11 October 2015 21: 17
    Everything moves in a spiral yesterday lost tomorrow will find

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

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