Military Review

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 power plant looks like hell. Eight water pipe boilers “Babcock & Wilksos”, four turbo gear units. The whistle of superheated steam, soot, gnash, 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.
Author:
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hammer
    Hammer 18 September 2015 06: 53 New
    -48
    Why this stupid article, what did afftor want to say? Again, F-35 syndrome or what?
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 18 September 2015 07: 09 New
      +38
      You shouldn’t be rude, you just don’t know the subject of Oleg’s articles ..)))!
      1. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 19 September 2015 14: 15 New
        +4
        I completely agree with the article, it’s just that Western karabels builders broke away from traditions and realities, and continue to “surprise” the world with “prodigies”!
    2. Konar
      Konar 18 September 2015 11: 28 New
      +19
      Oleg is the last romantic on the forum, so he is another plus.
      1. Throw
        Throw 18 September 2015 12: 17 New
        +5
        Chef, the mustache is gone, the armor is removed, the ship leaves! laughing
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. Rus86
    Rus86 18 September 2015 06: 53 New
    +3
    in the end, there was a time in aviation when someone completely refused armor, in favor of speed, supersonic, someone refused air guns, to please rockets, and then rooks appeared. thunderbolts2 etc. the ships are big, their radius of circulation is BIG)) everything will be, but right away. but maybe soon.
  3. androv
    androv 18 September 2015 07: 00 New
    0
    The beginning of the article is more than intriguing !!
    1. Gomel
      Gomel 18 September 2015 12: 30 New
      +2
      this seems to be part of more extensive material
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 18 September 2015 07: 06 New
    +4
    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. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 18 September 2015 07: 45 New
      +14
      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. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 18 September 2015 09: 40 New
        +3
        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. Santa Fe
          18 September 2015 09: 42 New
          +4
          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. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 September 2015 10: 17 New
            +2
            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. Delta
            Delta 18 September 2015 10: 52 New
            +1
            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. gladcu2
              gladcu2 18 September 2015 17: 17 New
              +2
              Delta

              I have a strong suspicion that Fursenko’s graduates got to designing ships. Secret weapon of the Russian Federation.
            2. 78bor1973
              78bor1973 19 September 2015 14: 22 New
              +1
              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. silver_roman
            silver_roman 18 September 2015 11: 30 New
            +1
            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 built Cleveland-class cruisers and planned Zamvolts. I’m almost sure that the efficiency of all Zamvolts will be higher than that of Cleveland!
      2. Talgat
        Talgat 18 September 2015 18: 55 New
        +2
        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. gladcu2
      gladcu2 18 September 2015 17: 14 New
      0
      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. combat192
      combat192 18 September 2015 20: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      Will reach land / sea targets with artillery in 180 km

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

      Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 September 2015 08: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas

        Oleg, I didn’t notice rudeness after you!
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 17: 08 New
          -2
          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. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 41 New
            +3
            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. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 23: 31 New
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              Do you know anything about subtle sarcasm?

              Is it you like a subtle sarcosist? Or find out what you want?
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 19 September 2015 06: 57 New
                +1
                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. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 19 September 2015 08: 05 New
                  -2
                  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. Delta
        Delta 18 September 2015 08: 37 New
        +8
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Serg65
        tired of it! From article to article the same thing, straight deja vu some!

        Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas


        Oleg, do not distort. Have you ever listened to critics, of whom you have a lot. Your battles with windmills on the principle of "one in one leg, the whole world out of one leg" are no longer even funny and stupidly occupy a place on the site. And do not about Ukraine. You published a good article about the construction of ships by Russia a couple of days ago. But these booked relics and sailing monsters ....
        1. teron
          teron 18 September 2015 13: 06 New
          +13
          Place on the site? Are you seriously?
          Do not like it - do not read. Nobody forces you. If the author is not right, comment, justify your own, correct, as you think, point of view. Oleg writes well has his own theme. Of those who have been on Military Review for a long time, some may have bothered him, but again not everyone. And those who first visited the site of his article will definitely be remembered and the person will come to us again. Oleg easily and easily writes, always accompanies his articles with photographs. We do not agree - we comment, prove, write our articles.
          Sincerely.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 17: 37 New
            +1
            Quote: teron
            We do not agree - we comment, prove, write our articles.

            I fully support, well said.
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2015 17: 41 New
            +1
            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. Serg65
              Serg65 18 September 2015 17: 46 New
              +1
              28 September 1914 year, the German submarine U-26 sank the Russian armored cruiser "Pallas"
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 September 2015 17: 55 New
                +1
                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. Serg65
                  Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 05 New
                  +1
                  Jutland battle, Inetetigible battle cruiser of the British Navy explodes in 30 seconds after two shells hit the German Navy battleship Von der Tann
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 08 New
                    +1
                    24 January 1915 year sunk armored cruiser Navy of Germany "Blucher".
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 14 New
                      +1
                      9 April 1940 Norwegian coastal batteries sunk heavy cruiser Blucher 2
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 19 New
                        +1
                        12 November 1941 the year at the Count's pier of Sevastopol from two bombs the light cruiser Chervona Ukraine drowns
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 25 New
                        +2
                        23 September 1941 years in Kronstadt from falling two bombs lay on the ground battleship "Marat"
                      3. Serg65
                        Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 31 New
                        +3
                        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. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 18: 46 New
                        -1
                        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. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 21: 49 New
                        -9
                        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. viktorR
                        viktorR 18 September 2015 23: 19 New
                        +3
                        And what about Putin and Ukraine? You would have written about Lukoshenko and Zimbabwe ...
                      7. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 23: 49 New
                        -4
                        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. viktorR
                        viktorR 20 September 2015 10: 56 New
                        +1
                        I won’t even argue that you are either a Troll or not an adequate person.

                        I can directly imagine how Putin didn’t "quarrel" with Ukraine, and you would have written right there at the forum that he had "fucked up" Sevastopol. Walk shorter in the forest, "warrior" damn light.
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 18 September 2015 23: 51 New
                  -1
                  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.
            2. Santa Fe
              19 September 2015 05: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              23 September 1941 years in Kronstadt from falling two bombs lay on the ground battleship "Marat"

              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" from two similar bombs did not drown. And not even much hurt - a month of repair
            3. Serg65
              Serg65 19 September 2015 07: 55 New
              +3
              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 bulk carrier without armor protection? I understood correctly, Oleg?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              LC "Vittorio" from two similar bombs did not drown. And not even much hurt - a month of repair

              Oh Oleg, Oleg ... you constantly do not agree on something !!!! And why not say that Vittorio Vineto repeatedly visited repair docks in Toronto throughout the war. Two years before the events you mentioned, the Italian stood 4 months in repair with a huge hole 9x3 in the stern. And this is at the height of the battle for Malta! And after 3,5 months after the repair was completed, I received another hole 13x6 this time under the aft tower and again 4 months in the hospital! And after the bombs you mentioned, the Veneto did not climb out into the sea right up to surrender. And why don't Oleg tell the public applauding to you 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 wrecked and retired ships for a long time ?!
            4. Santa Fe
              19 September 2015 08: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              Ie "Marat", is it a mobilized bulk carrier without armor protection?

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

              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
            5. Santa Fe
              19 September 2015 09: 26 New
              0
              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 unexploded PCR, but died in a real fierce battle, which is shameful in this

              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
      3. Santa Fe
        19 September 2015 05: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        light cruiser "Chervona Ukraine" drowns 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
      4. Serg65
        Serg65 19 September 2015 07: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why this example?
        Did he have a reservation?

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

        Did he have a reservation?
  • Santa Fe
    19 September 2015 03: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: Serg65
    Inetetigible battle cruiser of the British Navy explodes in 30 seconds after two shells hit the German Navy battle cruiser 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. Serg65
      Serg65 19 September 2015 07: 59 New
      +1
      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. Santa Fe
        19 September 2015 08: 32 New
        +2
        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. Serg65
        Serg65 19 September 2015 11: 26 New
        +1
        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. Santa Fe
        19 September 2015 18: 18 New
        +1
        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. Serg65
        Serg65 19 September 2015 19: 00 New
        +1
        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.
        RKR "Moscow" is designed for 30 minutes of battle, after it will bullet everything to the piece of iron, the cruiser will turn into an ordinary target. Well, what's the difference armored is a target or not ???? hi
      5. Santa Fe
        19 September 2015 19: 43 New
        +1
        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
        KR "Moscow" is designed for 30 minutes of battle

        You invented it yourself
      6. Kvazar
        Kvazar 20 September 2015 12: 16 New
        +2
        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.
  • Santa Fe
    19 September 2015 03: 48 New
    0
    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. Serg65
      Serg65 19 September 2015 08: 08 New
      +1
      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. Santa Fe
        19 September 2015 08: 34 New
        0
        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
  • Santa Fe
    19 September 2015 03: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    28 September 1914 year, the German submarine U-26 sank the Russian armored cruiser "Pallas"

    Did Pallas have PLO facilities? But the sailors had even the slightest idea how to counteract the submarines?
  • Santa Fe
    19 September 2015 03: 45 New
    0
    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. Serg65
      Serg65 19 September 2015 09: 34 New
      +1
      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 Edinburgh, General Belgrano, Molotov, Barem knew anything about the PLO? And the crews of "Arizona" and "Yamato" probably did not understand anything in air defense?
      1. Santa Fe
        20 September 2015 01: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        the crews of Edinburgh, General Belgrano, Molotov, Barema knew anything about PLO

        "Edinburgh" - apparently they knew something. The only 10 town cruiser sunk by a submarine. 10% - that’s all statistics

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

        "Molotov" - and here Molotov

        Barham is the only battleship sunk by a submarine on the high seas. Did not have a PTZ

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

        "Yamato" - an attack by 280 aircraft, an entire air army
  • bulvas
    bulvas 18 September 2015 09: 19 New
    +3
    SWEET_SIXTEEN


    Oleg, thanks for the article

    Very interesting and informative.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Olezhek
    Olezhek 18 September 2015 08: 51 New
    +5
    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. Serg65
      Serg65 18 September 2015 10: 31 New
      +8
      Quote: Olezhek
      The problem is what?

      The problem is my dear Olezhek in physiology. Eyes are given to a person to see, including read. The brain is given to comprehend, including what has been read. What does Oleg write about Zamovolta in this article? And what about the same Zamovolta, he writes in the article "The phenomenon of armored ships" or "The supercruiser" Invulnerable. The future of the fleet "? Find the differences!
      Vyacheslav "Delta" in his post mentions an article by Koptsov.
      What is the article "Russia builds ships for those who have money" about? The fact that Russia built for China the 4 destroyer ave. 956 EM, but for itself not. This fact caused reasonable indignation even at such pillars of naval thought as Andrei Kolobov, “Andrei from Chelyabinsk” and “donavi49” I respect. But Oleg somehow forgot to mention that the 956 project is already 42 of the year, and he began to design it even earlier. About EM. "Eternal" is generally somewhat foggy "Three and a half years from the moment of laying down to commissioning for the ship of the ocean zone with a full displacement of 8000 tons! The pace of construction is catching up with the Soviet period. Here it is, the great essence of capitalism, capitalists work wonders in the pursuit of profit . ". "The eternal one was laid on November 15 of 2002 of the year, and 28 of 2006 came into operation on September 956, three years turned into four, but that doesn’t matter. the last hull was launched in the 1999 year.
      Quote: Olezhek
      So this is for everybody ...

      Hello to lovers hi
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 18 September 2015 15: 05 New
        +4
        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 writes in the article "The Phenomenon of Armored Ships" or "Super Cruiser" The 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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 15: 12 New
          +10
          Quote: Olezhek
          all naked women are very alike

          Only naked women do not say this ... and dressed - too laughing
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2015 18: 47 New
            +1
            Andrew welcome! hi drinks On the way, something new in your performance is not expected?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 21: 54 New
              0
              Greetings, Sergey! drinks
              No, I’m so ... don’t sculpt anything historically valuable repeat
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 19 September 2015 09: 43 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No, I’m so ... don’t sculpt anything historically valuable

                laughing What the adversaries use!
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 18 September 2015 07: 40 New
    +1
    nice article - thanks!
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 September 2015 07: 41 New
    +3
    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. Santa Fe
      18 September 2015 08: 23 New
      0
      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. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 September 2015 08: 57 New
        +2
        and Zamvolt will sink - book it. Peter will drown, Ticondiroga, Atlas - yes any
        1. Santa Fe
          18 September 2015 09: 00 New
          +1
          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. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 September 2015 09: 05 New
            +3
            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. Santa Fe
              18 September 2015 09: 46 New
              +1
              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. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 September 2015 10: 29 New
                0
                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. Santa Fe
                  18 September 2015 10: 47 New
                  +3
                  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. Throw
                    Throw 18 September 2015 19: 54 New
                    +1
                    Returning to the main intrigue, what is the% ratio of ballast to total displacement at Zamvolt and Cleveland?
                    And what are their deadweight?
    2. barbiturate
      barbiturate 18 September 2015 15: 27 New
      +6
      “Project 1144 cruisers are protected against combat damage by anti-torpedo protection, a double bottom throughout the hull, and local reservations of vital parts of the TARK. As such, there are no belt armor on Project 1144 Orlan cruisers - armor protection is located in the depth of the hull - however, along The waterline from the bow of the ship to its stern was laid thickened belt trim panel height of 3,5 meters (of which 2,5 meters above the waterline and 1 meter below the waterline), which plays an important role in the constructive 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, rocket cellars of the Granit complexes and the reactor compartments from the sides are protected by 100 mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and 70 mm armor from the deck. The armor of the combat information post of the ship and the main command post, which are located inside its hull at the waterline level, also received armor protection: they are covered by 100-mm side walls with a 75-mm roof and traverses. In addition, in the stern of the cruiser armor is available on the sides (70 mm) and on the roof (50 mm) of the helicopter hangar, as well as around the ammunition storage depot and aviation fuel. Local booking is also available over tiller sections. "
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 September 2015 15: 43 New
        0
        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. barbiturate
          barbiturate 18 September 2015 19: 43 New
          +1
          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. Kvazar
        Kvazar 18 September 2015 16: 10 New
        0
        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.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 September 2015 08: 31 New
    +1
    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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 08: 37 New
    +4
    (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%

    Considering that the standard displacement of our Atlantes is about 9300 tons (or even more), the weight of the weapons on it is at least 1674 tons. For comparison, we take a Chapaev-class cruiser with its dozen six-inch guns in four very well-armored towers, etc. - with a standard displacement of 10, 620 tons had 1559 tons of weapons (together with ammunition and all the LMS 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 missiles was calculated without the mass of launchers. But, for example, Polynom State Joint-Stock Company weighs about 800 tons, i.e. almost like xnumx des moines towers yes
    1. Santa Fe
      18 September 2015 08: 43 New
      +1
      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
      Given the fact that the standard displacement of our Atlantes 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, we take a Chapaev-class cruiser with its dozen six-inch guns in four very well-armored towers, etc. - with a standard displacement of 10, 620 tons had 1559 tons of weapons (together with ammunition and all the LMS and combat posts)

      and 1536 more tons of armored shell
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 09: 05 New
        +4
        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. Armor in serious masses is not exactly there, but as for the other elements of the "constructive" (such as PMZ), I would not be so categorical.
        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. Santa Fe
          18 September 2015 09: 22 New
          0
          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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 09: 51 New
            +2
            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. Santa Fe
              18 September 2015 10: 06 New
              0
              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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 10: 23 New
                +2
                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 cables there, computers and other antennas are fie, they weigh almost nothing. And the mass of HAC proves to us that these "antennas / cables" can weigh VERY much. Much more than the actual means of destruction. What will a pair of torpedo tubes weigh there? Tons of 60? 100? But the equipment that allows you to hear submarines and attack them with torpedoes weighs 800 tons. Hence the moral - modern weapons control systems can be many times larger than the actual launch weights. 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. Santa Fe
                  18 September 2015 10: 31 New
                  0
                  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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 12: 13 New
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    much less than weapons, SLAs, mechanisms and constructive protection of WWII cruisers, 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 multifunctional weapon system "Aegis"
                    (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 <native - foreign> 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 subsystem of the passive interference setting <Super Р60К> (МkЗ6);
                    18 - the automated subsystem of artillery fire control (Mk86);
                    19 - an automated subsystem for controlling the shooting of the Aegis air defense missile system (Mk99);
                    20 - launchers for ship HP, SAM and PLUR (Mk26 or UVP Mk41);
                    21 - automated shooting control subsystem of the Kyrgyz Republic <Tomahawk>;
                    22 - automated fire control subsystem PFR <Harpoon>;
                    23 - anti-aircraft artillery complex "Vulcan-falanx" (Mk15);
                    24 - an automated anti-submarine weapon fire control subsystem (Mk116)

                    And yet, everything in the "tower"? :)
                    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. Santa Fe
                      18 September 2015 21: 47 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And yet, everything in the "tower"?

                      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 do you compensate the tipping moment from the "tower" and the influence 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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2015 08: 17 New
                        0
                        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
                        2-3 thousand otherwise how to compensate for the overturning moment from the "tower" and the influence 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.

                        The example is incorrect - they took a light cruiser and strongly rebuilt it, as a result of which the whole mass load "floated". If the same cruiser were designed from scratch (rather than rebuilding Cleveland), there would be no problem.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        21 September 2015 08: 40 New
                        0
                        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 VERY much.

                        Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
                        The radar and control system of the C-400 complex is mounted, if I am not mistaken, on the 2 MZKT-7930 and 1 Ural-5323. The total carrying capacity of 3 machines is 60 tons. The THAAD AN / TPY-2 GBR system (together with the chassis) fits into the Hercules (20 t. Max). Aegis is not C-400, of course, but it shouldn’t be talking about any thousands of tons.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 18 September 2015 09: 48 New
    +1
    I want to support. If only “rockets” are taken from the “Peter”, then for de'Moyne it is necessary to take a mass of only shells. If, for the second, the mass of the entire gun mount with the tower 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. Sukhoi
      Sukhoi 18 September 2015 12: 17 New
      0
      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. Santa Fe
        18 September 2015 21: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Sukhoi
        Oleg, is this the real size ratio of ships?

        Yes
  • PPD
    PPD 18 September 2015 11: 29 New
    0
    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.
  • Azzi
    Azzi 18 September 2015 08: 50 New
    +9
    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 of Oleg is fanned with history, the smoke of battles, something knightly and in comparison, our cynical age somehow loses. ))) What are some similar sensations as from Grishkovets with his "Dreadnought". You know, it’s much more interesting to read than another insanity about whether Ukraine will live another winter without gas ...
    1. Delta
      Delta 18 September 2015 08: 56 New
      0
      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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 09: 08 New
        +5
        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. gladcu2
        gladcu2 18 September 2015 17: 29 New
        +1
        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.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 18 September 2015 08: 52 New
    +2
    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
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 18 September 2015 09: 15 New
    +1
    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. Santa Fe
      18 September 2015 09: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      It’s worth at least visiting a modern ship

      at the same time and on the old
  • rosarioagro
    rosarioagro 18 September 2015 09: 15 New
    +1
    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
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 18 September 2015 10: 45 New
    0
    Yeah. A warship is a weapon, not a tourist ship.
  • Old_Python
    Old_Python 18 September 2015 10: 53 New
    +2
    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
  • PPD
    PPD 18 September 2015 11: 06 New
    +1
    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. Kvazar
      Kvazar 18 September 2015 17: 43 New
      0
      Sailing is sure to sink +)
      3 hits, swim further.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkf3ogkFxo#t=105
  • Falcon
    Falcon 18 September 2015 11: 17 New
    0
    Do you have a 30mm slot machine? Is there a 57mm gun?
  • Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 18 September 2015 11: 28 New
    -2
    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! )))
  • Taoist
    Taoist 18 September 2015 11: 44 New
    +4
    An interesting attempt at analysis. Alas, unpromising. For a complete analysis, you need a detailed summary of the weight loads - and this documentation from the "Sov. Secret" section - and a breakdown by "enlarged" gives a completely distorted picture. The devil, as usual, is in the details - but we don’t know the details.

    However, I am more likely to trust designers than similar "analyzers."
    1. Santa Fe
      18 September 2015 21: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      This is the documentation in 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. Taoist
        Taoist 19 September 2015 14: 09 New
        +1
        Well, count the height of the "directors" on the battleships you love so much. Or the weight of the "Martian 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 their eyes" whatever ship designs ... I'm afraid that you again wishful thinking.

        Have you seen the concept of the "dreadnought 2050"? There, they generally refused to add on superstructures - replacing the UAV. So the "dog then rummaged around" but obviously not as deep as you think.

        The refusal of a full-scale reservation is due primarily to the increased power and accuracy of weapons. Everything that flew to the side is considered guaranteed to hit. So why fence the garden? That's why the evolution of ships is moving towards a decrease in visibility so that it becomes more difficult to issue target designation. To strengthen the active defense means of air defense and missile defense (not to allow the enemy to board, because if allowed, armor will not help anymore ...) And to increase survivability - duplication of systems, constructive defense, automated systems to combat flooding and fires. Such a feint. However, all this has been stated to you more than once ... you stubbornly stand your ground like that "shtirlits" ... God help you.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 September 2015 18: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, count the height of the "directors" on the battleships you love so much.

          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
  • engineer74
    engineer74 18 September 2015 12: 10 New
    +5
    Here it turns out interesting: the "armored protection" of the infantryman is growing, the BBM is growing, the helicopter is growing, even in bomber (Su-34) appeared! But on the ships, for some reason, no ... Probably, the time has not come yet! And the Author, as usual, a prophet not understood by contemporaries! good
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 September 2015 12: 26 New
    +3
    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 "Mass loading of some warships of the Navy of the USSR."
    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. RiverVV
      RiverVV 18 September 2015 12: 46 New
      0
      And Abramovich’s yacht is even higher. Electrical equipment is ... :)))
    2. Santa Fe
      18 September 2015 22: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      Because ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT!

      "electricity" (c)

      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)
  • RiverVV
    RiverVV 18 September 2015 12: 52 New
    0
    To me, Zamvolt also reminds me of Khrushchev’s attempt to abandon artillery and replace it with missiles. Of course, they didn’t leave him without guns, and the task of shelling the coast was not initially set for him, but ... The niche for using such a ship is very narrow.
  • Earnest
    Earnest 18 September 2015 13: 03 New
    0
    I don’t understand anything in the navy from an ordinary person with a good erudition that goes beyond the horizons, but, reading Oleg’s articles (well-thought out and well-written, this is a plus), I ask myself only one question “born from childhood” - who will win in direct clash, Zamvolt or Cleveland? The answer to it will give a complete "stop" to all other arguments, therefore I ask for clarifications, short and unambiguous.
  • Operator
    Operator 18 September 2015 14: 04 New
    0
    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.
  • PPD
    PPD 18 September 2015 14: 12 New
    0
    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. Kvazar
      Kvazar 18 September 2015 18: 13 New
      +3
      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 rockets as well. Then you are without air defense from the word in general. Or air defense you want to leave at 60 missiles. Then instead of 20 missiles, you will have only 5 pieces. Which reduces the chance to break through the enemy’s air defense zone altogether. "Plug in the eye" so to speak +)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 September 2015 19: 26 New
        +1
        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 GOS so that the RCC is guided to places with the least strong protection (optical / radar guidance with target recognition by a "portrait" from the database and homing not at the maximum of the reflected signal, but at specific points of the identified target). For 540 mm on the entire side and the entire deck can not be stretched.
        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. Kvazar
          Kvazar 19 September 2015 11: 01 New
          +1
          it’s not realistic, all missile and missile launch systems work according to the “at least get in” system. we and the author say that making a modern reservation based on the best developments will reduce the chances of sinking the ship by orders of magnitude. The problem with the ships is that they are expensive and stalled when compared with tanks on the concept of armor does not hold anyway, then why do we need armor? this is the level of the end of 40 beginning of 50 in the tank structure. After the first applications, it was abandoned. And they forgot like a nightmare. As well as about purely rocket tanks. In fact, if you conduct parallels with a tank structure, all this has already passed. And modern ships are infantry fighting vehicles, not tanks) Concerning torpedoes. Read at your leisure how many torpedoes Yamato survived in the last battle. and how many bombs. and drowned only when BC pulled. Not a single modern ship can stand this much. And the super expensive ship will not go to repair, but to the bottom.
      2. waildcat
        waildcat 19 September 2015 00: 44 New
        0
        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. Kvazar
          Kvazar 19 September 2015 11: 20 New
          +1
          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.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 18 September 2015 15: 29 New
    0
    I always read articles by Oleg Kuptsov in VO with interest. And this article is no exception. By the way, questions of improving the security of ships were posed by competent sailors all over the world, including Soviet ones, long before the appearance of Zamvolt. Indeed, it’s not really a borzoi if the side of a ship stuffed above the roof with sophisticated weapons systems, the price of which is many millions of rubles or bucks, can be shot down by a frail shell, missile, or even a large-caliber bullet. But such ships are now in the sea of ​​Akiyans, a darkness of darkness.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 September 2015 15: 54 New
      +2
      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. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 16: 02 New
        0
        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. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 September 2015 17: 52 New
          0
          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. gregor6549
        gregor6549 18 September 2015 16: 52 New
        0
        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. Olezhek
      Olezhek 19 September 2015 09: 18 New
      0
      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 the "frail missiles" is not completely clear.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 18 September 2015 16: 05 New
    +3
    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 ...
  • Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 18 September 2015 18: 03 New
    +3
    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 vast majority of regulars usually appeal to return to serious topics, weapons and equipment ... But here's the trouble! It is this same majority that usually sits in topics devoted to Schenevroella, Non-Anguished, Arabs of refugee appearance and other politicized junk, alas. But Oleg’s articles - take it as you want: at least like trolling, at least stubbornness, at least blindness - they gather a lot of people in a dispute / discussion and in the comments sometimes look through links to interesting materials, documents, etc. - that is, what not to see and not to find on those very "curious" topics. I still have in my memory a wonderful series of articles by Kirill Ryabov about special underwater means - with the exorbitant 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. Delta
      Delta 18 September 2015 20: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Raphael_83
      But Oleg’s articles - take it as you want: at least like trolling, at least stubbornness, at least blindness - they gather a lot of people in a dispute / discussion and in the comments sometimes look through links to interesting materials, documents, etc. - that is, what not to see and not to find on those very "curious" topics. I still have in my memory a wonderful series of articles by Kirill Ryabov on special underwater means - with the exorbitant quality of the material, a maximum of 10-15 people participated in the discussion


      Murzilok sites a dime a dozen. “VO” somehow always positioned itself more seriously than a collection of jokes and heifers
  • xtur
    xtur 18 September 2015 19: 35 New
    +1
    > To compensate for wind loads and overturning moment from such a “structure”, in other words, to keep the metacentric height within normal limits, the creators of Zamvolta forcedly spent the lion's share of displacement on ballast.

    something that reminded me ...

    Oh yes, the victory of technology over common sense! ©
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 18 September 2015 20: 08 New
    +1
    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, it seems that the designers of warships perfectly understood and understand the importance of armor and really valuable fleet units were just booked (for example, aircraft carriers or cruisers such as project 1144). Now, when the likelihood of a nuclear conflict has decreased and wars of the type of "quickly landed 16-20 anti-ship missiles against the enemy with 2-3 nuclear warheads and wait for a return nuclear tsatska" are already unlikely, more and more people are thinking about booking ships.
  • LMaksim
    LMaksim 18 September 2015 20: 37 New
    0
    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.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 19 September 2015 08: 30 New
    +1
    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.
  • Olezhek
    Olezhek 19 September 2015 09: 14 New
    -1
    And why don't you tell Oleg not to applaud the public that during these events the Italians lost three heavy cruisers (the best cruisers of the “Washington period”) and two battleships, apart from a lot of damaged and retired ships 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 during the arrest, "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.
  • Earnest
    Earnest 19 September 2015 21: 23 New
    +1
    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 the discussion on the topic "What is stronger - armor or shell?"
    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.

    But you need to think about something else - the author proposes to abandon any systems inherent in warships, and due to the "liberated" mass to increase armor? NOT! He just talks about “If I could make the armor thicker”, and in what way - smiling slyly, he walks around without giving any options. Typical fan sketch!
    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.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 19 September 2015 23: 51 New
    +1
    There are examples when the struggle for extra speed knots led to the loss of entire fleets when hit by a typhoon (without enemy influence) 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 falling into a single unexploded RCC. about the "Orlanes" it is said about the availability of constructive armor protection within reasonable limits according to the views of the 80's and there is not a single comment criticizing such an "anachronism", and the sailors serving on them are calmer from consciousness That no pirate in the sea with 14,5-mm KPV on his schooner did not dare try the "delete"!
    And one can argue: what is more important to carry -2000 tons of armor or a couple of turbines with fuel for full speed?
  • mvg
    mvg 20 September 2015 02: 53 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Serg65
    23 September 1941 years in Kronstadt from falling two bombs lay on the ground battleship "Marat"

    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" from two similar bombs did not drown. And not even much hurt - a month of repair

    There were several bombs, but the truth was badly damaged by one, 1000 kg. 1500 "thing" would not have raised .. Biography of the most famous German pilot. "Pilot pieces"
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 September 2015 10: 36 New
    +1
    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. To the ship of the future you can "tie"
    (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 the Zumvolt-2 will turn outwardly into a mixture of an aircraft carrier and a floating submarine.
    What is required.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 20 September 2015 17: 52 New
      +1
      like an aerostat, for example.
      I quite like this idea. To the ship of the future you can "tie"
      (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
  • The comment was deleted.
  • yehat
    yehat 20 September 2015 18: 01 New
    0
    I welcome any attempt at honest analysis
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 20 September 2015 19: 56 New
    0
    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
  • Shnd
    Shnd 11 October 2015 21: 17 New
    0
    Everything moves in a spiral yesterday lost tomorrow will find