Military Review

Missing armor

154



Recently, a highly specialized discussion on the problems of shipbuilding has flared up on topwar. Accumulated thoughts forced to write an article, because it is already impossible to fit them into the comment format. It will again be about ship's armor, so those who have developed an allergy to this subject may not continue to read.

"Cruiser of the destroyer"

Shipboard armor became one of the main disputed objects. The phenomenon of its disappearance, it would seem, has already been discussed from all sides. But, despite the stormy debate, the key points were not voiced.

One of the main arguments: the articles of the load, reserved for booking, were released and it was not clear what. As a result, modern ships do not have a reservation at all, and there is no sharp increase in the saturation of weapons or equipment close in mass to the missing armor. The error of the entire logic of such an assertion is inherent in the very formulation of the question. The fact is that the armor did not disappear. It did not disappear, because it was not there.

Indeed, what ships carried serious booking during the years of WWII? It was at least "light cruisers", but "light" only in the classification of that era. In reality, these were ships with a full displacement of more than 12000 tons. That is comparable in size to the modern RKR Ave 1164. Smaller ships did not have armor, or the booking was purely symbolic: with the thickness of the 25-50 mm plates.

The modern subclass "missile cruiser" did not appear through the evolution of artillery cruisers, but grew out of a destroyer who had never had a reservation. That is how the first in the world RKR project 58 appeared, which received the serial number of the project from the "miner" series. Reclassified into a cruiser, he was by the will of Khrushchev and the leadership of the Navy, in view of the seriousness of the tasks facing him. Especially since he could not be a “squadron” at all, for it was supposed to act purely cruising alone.

Therefore, the most massive oceanic warships are descendants and the development of destroyers of the WWII period. They never carried any armor, and they never had the corresponding loads. There is no need to talk about frigates - ships of such size and displacement have never been booked. Therefore, the possible experiences of the Stark frigate are not from this opera - there was no armor on a ship of similar size even during the WWII period.

“What did the armor go to?”

Nevertheless, the modern destroyer, although it had grown from a destroyer of WWII, was already almost mature enough in size and displacement to a light cruiser of the period of WWII, but never received any armor. Nor do missile cruisers without a mineric origin — Ticonderoga and Glory — and Peter the Great have only local booking of individual systems. Constructed immediately like cruisers, they could get a reservation. Where did the designers put those displacement stocks, which were assigned to armor?

The answer is the same - they did not go anywhere. Modern RKR was designed from scratch, without regard to the armored ancestors. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine them as a structure in which supposedly a certain weight could be laid under the armor, but which was dullly dragged away to “fitness centers”, half-empty interior rooms, exhaust pipe mines, and so on. All these "excesses" exist by themselves, and they did not appear at the price of giving up the reservation. The converse is also true - if armor is required, it is not necessary to cut down the areas of antenna posts and cabins in order to carve out the weight. Just when equipping with an armor of a modern cruiser, its displacement will increase while maintaining its dimensions. For example, “Arly Burke” from series to series is heavy and has grown from 8 448 tons of full displacement to 9 648 tons, extending the hull by just 1,5 meters. Increase 1200 tons could well be spent on armor.

The version that the weight reserved for armor on WWII cruisers could increase the height of reinforcements of the radar antenna posts does not hold water. The KDP of WWII cruisers were located, as a rule, at the same altitudes, or slightly lower - just a few meters. For example, the KDP of the 68-bis cruiser was located at an altitude of 27 meters from the waterline, and the radar antenna post on the 1164 cruiser was located at an altitude of 32 meters. It is hard to believe that 2 910 tons of armor of the cruiser 68-bis went on to raise 5 radar meters on a similar-sized cruiser "Slava". Another example - the battle cruiser Alaska has a KDP at an altitude of 30 meters, and a radar station on 37 meters. The 1144 cruiser of similar size has a radar at the height of the 42 meter. Not observed a sharp increase in the height of antenna posts in other cases.

Perhaps, superstructures began to weigh more? Is it really on 2900 tons? Let's try to imagine the dimensions of the superstructure weighing 2900 tons, made of steel with a thickness of 8 mm. Having made simple calculations, we will find out that it will weigh so much a five-story house with a length of 95 meters and a width of 20 meters. Are such structures visible on the deck of the RKR Ave 1164? Not. Even the “dwelling house” of the Ticonderoga cruiser is three times less.


And nevertheless on what could the weight of armor of light cruisers of WWW on rocket cruisers of similar in size go? No matter what. There is simply no reservation, that's all. If desired, it can be delivered to existing cruisers without any problems and overloads. Modern cruisers just became lighter with the same dimensions.

This is easily seen in the 1164 cruiser. He just has a perfect counterpart in the face of the cruiser "Cleveland". The length is the same - 186 meters, the width of the 1164 - 20,8 m, the "Cleveland" - 20,2 m. Draft 6,28 and 7,5 meters, respectively. But the total displacement of 1164 is 11280 tons, and the Cleveland 14131 ton. With the same dimensions, "Cleveland" weighs 25% more! But in light cruisers armor weight just fluctuated within 20-30% of the standard displacement. What will happen if “Glory” is loaded with armor to the Cleveland’s 14131 ton? That's right, "Glory" will acquire armor, very similar to that of "Cleveland." For example: an armored belt with a height of 6 meters, a length of 130 meters and a thickness of 127 mm, as well as solid armored formwork within the same 130 meters with a thickness of 51 mm. And it will weigh just 2797 tons, i.e. the difference in total displacement between the "Cleveland" and "Glory." Will “Glory”, having received an additional load in 2797 tons, go to sea? Of course he can, because “Cleveland” somehow did it.

The same analogy can be drawn with the 1144 cruiser, which has an analogue in the form of the Alaska battle cruiser. The length of the hulls is 250,1 and 246,4, the width is 28,5 and 27,8, the draft is 7,8 and 9,7 meters. The sizes are very close. The total displacement of the 1144 Ave. - 25 860 tons, "Alaska" - 34 253 tons. Alaska has 4 720 tons of armor. With such a booking weight, 1144 can get an armor belt with a length of 150 meters, a height of 6 meters and a thickness of 150 mm, as well as an armored deck with a thickness of 70 mm. Of course, weaker than Alaska, but also looks solid. At the same time, it is quite obvious that “Peter the Great”, having accepted ballast (or armor) in 4720 tons, will not go to the bottom at all, but will only slightly settle with the hull, and will calmly plow the ocean. The huge difference in displacement between the ships of almost identical dimensions clearly shows that the much more developed and high superstructures of the 1144 project actually weigh just a little, and whether they are twice as bulky and taller - Peter the Great did not weigh heavier than armored Alaska ".

And here is an example of an analogue not in size, but in displacement. Our BOD 1134B is one-on-one similar in displacement to the Japanese light cruisers Agano. At the same time, “Agano” is noticeably already our BOD (15,2 meter versus 18,5) with almost the same length and draft. Here, the reader will say! The ships are the same, and the armor on the BNC 1134B is not! Where did talentless designers get armor-free tons on our BOD? No need to rush to conclusions, you first need to enjoy information about booking "Agano". It had the thickness of the side armor of the whole 50 mm, the deck in 20 and the tower 25 mm. In principle, almost the same today armored carriers of the ground forces. In short, the displacement and size of unarmored rocket ships and their armored artillery ancestors begin to converge when the booking of the latter tends to zero.

"Specific density of the ship"

To verify the above arguments, you can use the simplest, even primitive, but clear way to estimate the density of a ship’s layout. The underwater part of any vessel has a complex shape, and in order not to engage in the calculation of integrals, we simply take the volume bounded by the length, width and draft of the hull. This is a very rough method, but oddly enough, with respect to a multitude of ships gives a pronounced regularity.

Artillery armored ships have a density at full displacement within 0,5 - 0,61 tons / м3. Modern rocket ships to such indicators do not reach. The characteristic numbers for them are: 0,4 — 0,47 tons / m3.

For the pairs of cruisers mentioned by me, these values ​​will be: “Glory” - 0,46 tons / m3, “Cleveland” - 0,5 tons / m3. "Peter the Great" - 0,47 tons / m3, "Alaska" - 0,52 tons / m3. "Nikolaev" - 0,46 tons / m3, "Agano" - 0,58 tons / m3.

There are exceptions confirming the rule. There are armored ships, the conditional density of which is close to that of rocket ships. True, the very booking of such ships can be considered tending to zero. This is a project 26-bis cruiser - 0,46 tons / m3 (like 1164). At the same time, the thickness of armor of 26-bis cruisers does not exceed 70 mm and it is difficult to consider them as “seriously” armored ships.

The second example is the battleships of the “Deutschland” type, Germany’s famous diesel raiders - 0,42 tons / m3. But their booking does not reach even that of the “light” Cleveland: 80 mm board and 45 mm deck.

It is clear that the armored ships are heavier. Nevertheless, this did not prevent them from plying the oceans as well as modern rocket descendants. From modern rocket ships, the armor was simply removed, without in any way using the released constructive stocks of the masses. Therefore, rocket ships have simply become lighter, and nothing more.

"If not armor, then why not weapon

Of course, the statement that a modern missile cruiser can freely hang armor, equal in weight and thickness to the respective ships of WWII, is a simplification. But it clearly shows that modern ships are in fact underused and, if desired, they can be booked to one degree or another. And without radically changing the composition of the weapons, the ammunition, and without reducing the payload as a whole.

There is one more question. If modern ships are so underloaded and have impressive reserves for the masses, why not put on them at times more weapons? If not for armor, then at least you can spend this supply on a weapon!

And here already other laws come into force. Armor is compact, because steel has a density of 7800 kg / m3. Missiles, computers, radars and other things with such a density is not. It means that volumes and areas are required. And this is an increase in size, followed by displacement.

The proposal described above for the possible equipping of the Slava cruiser has a lot of “unused load” in 2 797 tons. This weight easily fits more than 12 sets of the “Fort” air defense missile system, as part of 12 radar of illumination-guidance and 768 of missiles in drum starters. That is, the stock in weight is huge, but can someone, looking at the RKR drawings of 1164 Ave. find the free space or volume to accommodate additional TPC missiles of the “Fort” complex? No, those are not found. Increase ammunition does not work, and not because of congestion, but because of the lack of free spaces. Even if the habitability is reduced to the level of “everyone is sleeping along in one common barracks”, to cut off the masts and superstructures, there will not be room for such a number of missiles. And this situation will be on any modern ship, be it Ticonderoga, Glory, or Peter the Great.

Finally, no one argues that modern ships are ideal, maybe soon there will be a ship with a better layout, more saturated with weapons.

“Why is there no armor?”

If it is possible to put armor, why does nobody put it on? Everyone knows why armor disappeared from ships in the era of nuclear weapons, but that’s why it has not yet appeared again is not entirely clear.

And the answer lies in the armor penetration of modern warheads of anti-ship missiles. The presence of an armor belt with a thickness of 150-200 mm does not fundamentally solve the task of protecting the ship. It only reduces the likelihood of damage from warheads with low armor-piercing (X-35 missiles, Garpun, Tomahawk, Exocet), but it doesn’t save “big” missiles from the warhead. The armor penetration data is still not advertised, but there is one exception. It is known that the cumulative high-explosive warhead BCR PKR "Basalt", which is in service with the cruisers of the project 1164, breaks through the 400 mm of armored steel. It seems that the numbers for Granite are not particularly smaller, but rather, even more. It is possible that the armor penetration of Bramos non-cumulative warheads or Mosquito missiles is smaller, but not many times.

Under these conditions, the presence of 200-300 mm thick, but negligibly small in terms of area, armor does not play any role. If even a rocket hits him, she punches him without any problems. Even for light RCCs that do not have high kinetic energy (low flight speed and mass of the warhead), a compact cumulative warhead can be built that can cope with at least an 100-mm barrier. A thicker armor on ships dimensions of the modern destroyer will not appear. The Super Cruisers like Peter the Great may not be stoked by the Harpoons or the X-35, but by the Granit and the Basalt. Even if the target is a battleship from the time of WWII, for example, “Iowa” - its armor in 330 mm is not a problem.

It turns out that those who want to build modern battleships propose to create target ships for an already existing means of destruction. That is why the armor is not being revived in full even nowadays. Shoot down missiles on approach in any case more effective. Active protection prevents problems, passive - only allows to reduce their consequences with a certain luck.

In this case, the presence of splinterproof booking on modern ships no one disputes. Armor on rocket ships should appear, and its area and weight will only grow with time. But the purpose and role of such a booking is completely different than that of the WWII cruisers. Prevent any penetration of armor from the warhead of the PCR PKR today is capable of, but to reduce the effects of this penetration completely. Do not approach such armor to the parameters of the time of WWII and by weight.
Author:
Photos used:
shipbucket.com
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 26 September 2015 06: 56 New
    17
    We look forward to hearing from Oleg Kaptsov! He is the main defender of battleships and ship reservations.
    1. tomket
      tomket 26 September 2015 10: 38 New
      11
      Quote: Magic Archer
      We look forward to hearing from Oleg Kaptsov! He is the main defender of battleships and ship reservations.

      Do you think that kaptsov is somehow clearly able to answer? Without distorting the facts? All his arguments on armor boil down to: "Bang !!! Bang !!! And here" Bismarck "- BANG !!!" Hood "bul-bul." Batelship "-KRUTOOO !!!!"
      1. Darkmor
        Darkmor 26 September 2015 11: 41 New
        +9
        So, to be honest, I don’t even know who is right - and it was possible to argue before boiling plastic on the keyboard.

        But I have an amateurish look:
        If there is no armor on modern ships, then it needs to be invented in the form in which it could be. :)

        If the problem is weight - think of something that weighs a little.
        The problem is inefficiency - think of what will be effective.
        The problem is in the specific type of weapons - think up what will act specifically against these weapons. Etc.

        In the end, this is a technological and engineering challenge that designers around the world simply ignore.
        It's all the same that all the mathematicians of the world, together with Perelman, would say "Poincaré's hypothesis is too complicated and nobody needs it, let's not deal with it."
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 26 September 2015 13: 44 New
          +8
          Do you not admit that it is simply not profitable? Why "invent armor" if the desired result can be obtained easier and cheaper? Only because of "engineering pride"?
          1. Thronekeeper
            Thronekeeper 26 September 2015 14: 57 New
            +2
            God, this armor, integrated like that of tanks, sparingly saves you from Harpoon, Uranus and Exoset M4. Only the Yakhonta-A warhead has an EK as the initial EK of the Pobeda projectile of 254mm, as well as a two-ton hull and kerosene. At the end there is a buit for a 30-ton dry cargo ship. Training rocket with inert warhead
            The "Basalt" of a 40-ton dry-cargo ship does not notice, passes through a 40-ton dry ship, sets fire to ketosene, and the warhead breaks above the water. It is equivalent to the Yamato projectile.
            Reservation, reservation ....


            [img] https://yandex.ru/images/#!/images/search?img_url=http://fbexternal-a.akama
            ihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDtyOQDNnV6rQU-&w=75&h=75&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wiki
            media.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F55%2FUSS_Stark.jpg%2F720px-USS_Sta
            rk.jpg & cfs = 1 & f & fallback = hub_likes & _ = 1443265009265 & p = 3 & text = Getting into the ship of RCC Bramos & redircnt = 1443267987.1 & noreask = 1 & pos = 90 & rpt = simage & lr = 35 [/ img]
            1. Malkor
              Malkor 27 September 2015 23: 38 New
              0
              Finally, a sound look at modern ship booking. The author is a big plus. Kaptsov beats in a fit and bites his nails. The problem is that armor is not a panacea, and ships of the WWII era are just targets. Any Titanic can be drowned at will.
              1. Basarev
                Basarev 28 September 2015 18: 46 New
                0
                The salt is not in the armor penetration of the cumulative warheads of anti-ship missiles, but in the banal strength of missiles. Believe me, even the most penetrative rocket will not do any harm to the modern battleship - it simply flattenes into an accordion from a strike - Kaptsov would say so.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 28 September 2015 20: 19 New
                  0
                  I will not believe. It will simply blow the entire side, destroy the ship's kit and explode inside. It is written so long because I just "don't believe" I didn't miss the site engine.
        2. Nishtiag
          Nishtiag 30 September 2015 01: 11 New
          0
          It’s not a matter of ignoring ... To make a more effective armor that can withstand modern warheads of modern anti-ship missiles and at the same time not completely kill the ship’s mobility as a combat unit, we need new materials, more durable, more elastic, less dense and probably have a dozen more conflicting in terms of common sense qualities to each other. When the material is somehow random, as is usually the case, it appears - armor also appears. In the meantime, it’s better to bring down everything that flies into you and drown everything that floats to you. In the end, no one is trying to build an invulnerable ship. Each combat unit has its own life expectancy in battle. The ship must have time to detect targets and launch the first salvo. Everything that exceeds this is already a bonus and luck. In a ship’s battle, there will inevitably be losses from the first volley exchange, the second and so on. And it is quite possible that the surviving ships will be on both sides when the attacking missiles end, and the artillery will not reach the same 300-500 km, for example.

          Frankly, all this is speculation, of course. The last battle of equal opponents was during WWII ...

          Your question, of course, is correct: “you have to do it - do it” ... But it is difficult to implement for a whole set of various factors from different scientific and technical spheres.
    2. Alex20042004
      Alex20042004 28 September 2015 21: 03 New
      0
      http://topwar.ru/33221-reaktory-na-torgovyh-sudah-konec-romantiki.html
      quite interesting
  2. Dart2027
    Dart2027 26 September 2015 07: 05 New
    21
    In general, the same thing as for people.
    In olden times, armor was completely covering the body.
    Then they were abandoned, since a firearm appeared.
    Then came helmets protecting the head.
    Then came bulletproof vests that provide some protection.
    1. max702
      max702 27 September 2015 19: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Dart2027
      In general, the same thing as for people.
      In olden times, armor was completely covering the body.
      Then they were abandoned, since a firearm appeared.
      Then came helmets protecting the head.
      Then came bulletproof vests that provide some protection.

      That's it! it all depends on the technological and scientific level! We learned how to make effective and CHEAP helmets, and they all appeared, opened Kevlar and developed an INEXPENSIVE technology for its production, and here you have body armor! They mastered the technology of ceramic plates and bulletproof vests became light and effective (though the price is ..) They’ll finish the ceramics and carbon fiber, and maybe liquid armor, you’ll look at the boats in armor again and put on .. And with current scientific and technological levels, the means of destruction are far ahead of the PASSIVE protection (armor) ..
      1. satris
        satris 28 September 2015 20: 46 New
        0
        Type of inflatable armor - like passive protection screens in tanks to disperse the cumulative stream. Or a honeycomb design, for the same purpose. With swirlers changing the direction of the cumulative jet. Ceramics, backfill, etc. Lightweight but durable.
  3. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 26 September 2015 07: 15 New
    12
    good article! Thank you - I read the whole cycle with pleasure!
  4. altman
    altman 26 September 2015 07: 38 New
    +5
    The eternal question is what is more important and necessary .. protection or attack .. The disappearance of armor from ships can be looked for in evolution? After all, the ships did not immediately lose it. Initially, WWII cruisers began to be converted into guided weapons. Only after what happened did the designers switch to "armored" ships. I think that after a while there will be a tendency to book critical parts of large ships. But this will happen when the designers realize that most of the missiles can break through and hit him. Now there is no such understanding. And the radar antennas cannot be booked .. probably.
    1. 27091965
      27091965 26 September 2015 11: 27 New
      13
      Quote: altman
      I think that after a while there will be a tendency to arm the most important parts of large ships. But this will happen when the designers realize that most of the missiles can break through and hit him. Now there is no such understanding.



      Aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov. "Surface structural protection (NKZ) is made on the principle of shielding, internal protective barriers are composite structures (steel-fiberglass-steel type). The main material of NKZ is high-strength steel with a yield strength of 60 kgf / mm2. local box booking.

      For the first time in the practice of domestic aircraft carrier shipbuilding, underwater structural protection (PKZ) was used to increase the combat and operational survivability of the ship. The characteristics of unsinkability and explosion and fire safety were significantly increased. Based on the results of numerous research and development work and field experiments, the depth of the onboard PKZ was taken within 4,5-5 m. Of the three longitudinal bulkheads, the second one is armored (on the lead ship it was packaged, that is, multilayer, on the second - monolithic). The applied armor of the hull, allowing to withstand a direct hit of a four-hundred-kilogram charge. "
  5. common man
    common man 26 September 2015 07: 40 New
    15
    The presence of an armored belt 150-200 mm thick does not fundamentally solve the problem of protecting the ship. It only reduces the likelihood of damage from warheads with low armor-piercing properties (X-35, Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet missiles), but does not save “large” missiles from warheads. Armor penetration data are still not advertised, but there is one exception. It is known that the Cumulative High-explosive warhead RCC Bazalt, which is in service with the Project 1164 cruisers, pierces 400 mm of armored steel. It seems that the numbers for "Granite" are not particularly smaller, but rather, even more.

    If this expression were written in 1941, it would look like this.

    "The presence of an armored belt with a thickness of 150-200 mm does not fundamentally solve the problem of protecting the ship. It only reduces the likelihood of damage from warheads with low armor penetration (guns of 100-152 mm), but does not in any way save" large "guns from warheads. Data on armor penetration so far are not advertised, but there is one exception. It is known that the armor-piercing shell of the battleship South Dakota penetrates 600 mm of armor steel from a distance of 9000 m. It seems that the numbers for the Yamato are not much less, but rather even more. "

    And why are they stupid armored cruiser?
    When they prove the uselessness of armor, they always cite Granite as an example. Tell me how many ships we have in the world carrying heavy anti-ship missiles of the Granite type. And how many of them are there in percentage of the total number of missile carriers.
    And how is it all with mass warheads, such as Exoset, with warheads?
    1. altman
      altman 26 September 2015 13: 26 New
      0
      The function of protecting the armor belt began to carry out missiles that shot down cruise missiles
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 26 September 2015 08: 17 New
    +3
    Well, let's just say the author did not understand why modern ships in terms of displacement are comparable to WWII cruisers, and they have almost no armor. The author asks the question, where did the ship's volumes intended for armor go and almost answered this question, but precisely "almost". The full answer is that volumes have been "eaten" by modern ergonomics. First: ease of use is now at the forefront, as is the ergonomics of the workplace. Accordingly, the "free" volumes intended for this on modern ships are several times greater than on old ones, during WWII. The same applies to the living and living conditions of the crew. Only one living in the crew quarters is worth something. Secondly, it is the presence of a huge amount of electronics that needs to be cooled and serviced and which does not tolerate a "dense" layout that "eats" the lion's share of the useful volume. On old ships, long cable runs in armored wells, through rare switches, led to separate parts of the ships where electrical consumers were compactly located, which were several times smaller than now. Now, electrical consumers on the ship are literally at every step, which makes equipment switching complex and voluminous. Thirdly, enhanced armor increases the cost of building and operating a ship. The builders are trying in every possible way to reduce the cost of both construction and maintenance of the ship in the future. And finally, fourthly: the customer really does not put, now, requirements for the full armor protection of the ship from penetration of large ammunition into its internal space by the striking elements, realizing the futility of such measures - the disproportionate cost of such measures in comparison with their effectiveness. However ... there is information that work is underway on the so-called "modular" armor, that is, armor plates, which, with a low weight, consist of "honeycomb", "puff" and other fillers leading to enhanced protection against damage equivalent to many centimeters of usual armor. So, it is possible, soon, such armor will appear en masse on all ships under construction (or it has already been secretly installed in some places).
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 September 2015 11: 20 New
      +5
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Well, let's just say that the author didn’t understand why modern ships with displacement are comparable to WWII cruisers, and the armor is almost devoid of

      The author spoke about all this in his article only without unnecessary details, as it were.
      In my opinion a good article.
    2. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 26 September 2015 21: 56 New
      +1
      The author understood and told. The equipment of modern ships has a specific gravity much less than an armored belt. The RCC + PU + LMS complex (including the radar) can weigh relatively little, but the volume can be much larger than the cast iron cube equivalent in weight. Therefore, ship volumes are growing.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 28 September 2015 20: 04 New
        +2
        The secret is clear: powerful armor is really needed ... But only for ships operating near the coast. Gauges there are not serious - in most cases, 152 mm is the upper limit, and larger-caliber artillery systems are available only for superpowers, which cannot be impressed by a coastal armored ship. The point is that it is quite possible in our time to reliably protect the ship from six-inch guns. Toka ... For a coastal ship, and weapons must be proportionate - that is, guns. No one will load Granites onto such a vessel - submarines as carriers of cruise missiles are much more efficient. The main thing for a coastal battleship is to show that we, too, aren’t slurping a cabbage soup. He will cope with the demonstration of the flag perfectly, with the formidable look of his guns, cooling his hot heads ... And in case of speed, he will quickly and cheaply break up the coastal infrastructure and support the troops with fire, without fear of any opposition from the land - he is simply invulnerable to him. Yes, anti-ship missiles of many kinds will continue to pose a terrible threat to the coastal battleship ... But a warrant is needed to deal with them. Battleships never went alone.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 28 September 2015 22: 53 New
          +1
          Those. simply put, battleships are still needed, but not for ship duels, but to support landing operations. Here the question arises: Why, then, did the US Navy, which had several battleships in fair condition and underwent good modernization, actually abandoned their use?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 28 September 2015 23: 38 New
            0
            And this is really interesting. I do not know the truth or not, but I heard that the Marine Corps was shocked by the refusal of the US Navy from large-caliber artillery.
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 September 2015 08: 21 New
    14
    I already thought Kaptsov wrote !!! And at the end he crossed himself ...
    How much fuss around this booking! How much can you pour from empty to empty !! Guys, throw this stubbornness out of your heads! Do you want to know the answers ?? 7 So contact the Design Bureau and there they will clearly explain to you the lack of armor on modern ships! It seems that the forum users have simply explained why modern ships do not carry capital armor on the waterline. Already this article at the end in two paragraphs answered all the questions !!! But no - give me the armor and that’s it. request
    The very concept of waging war with the means that until the half of the 2000th century justified booking, now are different times, ANOTHER weapon !!! Ships were armored to prevent sinking by shells, today the ship does not even need to be sunk - it is enough to simply disable it. And for this it is enough to hit the surface units. No armor will save you here, and you won't be able to overbook. Will turn over. And splinterproof armor applies! And with both hands "for" him. And the author is right that it is more effective to prevent the missile from hitting the ship. And to carry an extra XNUMX tons of armor just so that the probability of sinking is lower - any modern designer will simply do it like this fool am Simple truths, understandable to modern shipbuilders, suddenly do not let a couple stubborn sleep in dreams dreamed of armor. lol
    Yes, it is on modern ships exactly as much as sober calculation, economics and expediency allow !!! laughing
    Well, as small children ... request hi
    1. common man
      common man 26 September 2015 09: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      So contact the Design Bureau and there they will clearly explain to you the lack of armor on modern ships!

      Or maybe you don’t have to blame everything on the designers. Several times at exhibitions (even if not marine, but land) I asked questions to representatives of manufacturers, AND WHY why did you do this and not that way? The answer is always one. So the customer wanted. Therefore, the question is more likely to the Navy strategists why they decided not to reserve the ships.
      1. kotvov
        kotvov 28 September 2015 18: 11 New
        0
        Therefore, the question is rather to the Navy strategists why they decided not to reserve the ships. ,,
        and you don’t suspect that they’re not boobies in the General Staff either. and understand with modern weapons, armor will not help. It will only affect seaworthiness, etc.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 26 September 2015 12: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      How much fuss around this booking! How much can you pour from empty to empty !! Guys, throw this stubbornness out of your heads! Do you want to know the answers ?? 7 So contact the Design Bureau and there they will clearly explain to you the lack of armor on modern ships! It seems that the forum users have simply explained why modern ships do not carry capital armor on the waterline. Already this article at the end in two paragraphs answered all the questions !!!

      But it flew into one ear, but did not linger in the second
      Quote: man in the street
      Or maybe you don’t have to blame everything on the designers. Several times at exhibitions (even if not marine, but land) I asked questions to representatives of manufacturers, AND WHY did this and not this way? The answer is always one. So the customer wanted. Therefore, the question is rather to the Navy strategists why they decided not to reserve the ships.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 September 2015 18: 39 New
        0
        Quote: man in the street
        How much fuss around this booking! How much can you pour from empty to empty !! Guys, throw this stubbornness out of your heads!

        Quote: Serg65
        But it flew into one ear, but did not linger in the second

        Beginning of the article:
        This will again be about ship's armor, so those who have developed an allergy to this topic may not read further.

        The question is, why read if you do not like it?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 September 2015 19: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The question is, why read if you do not like it?

          Michael, these are girls I like or dislike, the question is different ... right or wrong! Although there are some inaccuracies in the article regarding missile cruisers pr. 1164, Alexei made the correct conclusion !!!! While some are cursing the brain about which armor to cheat a bunch of others will already figure out how to break through this armor and there is only one way out of this stalemate, do not waste time on the armor, but think about how to repay the danger in the bud hi
          1. common man
            common man 26 September 2015 21: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            While some are cursing the brain about which armor to heap, a bunch of others will figure out how to break through this armor and there is only one way out of this stalemate, do not waste time on the armor, but think about how to repay the danger in the bud

            Well, you can say the same thing. "While some are thinking about what other cunning missiles to bungle, a bunch of others are already coming up with electronic warfare means that turn off these same missiles."
            Remembering "Donald Cook", the situation when the "active protection" of the ship is turned off is not so absurd. And if at the same time its own automatics are turned off, then there is only one way out, "fire from all direct-fire guns"
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 26 September 2015 21: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: man in the street
              Remembering "Donald Cook", the situation when the "active protection" of the ship is turned off is not so absurd. And if at the same time its own automatics are turned off, then there is only one way out, "fire from all direct-fire guns"

              And here I agree with you, after the Falklands, Brita even began to put light machine guns on their ships, but we really didn’t get such insanity the AK-230 and AK-630 initially provided for manual control - this is for an REB aircraft.
              1. samuil60
                samuil60 26 September 2015 22: 45 New
                +4
                The fact that the strength and impenetrability of the hull plays a role can be seen, at least on the example of the coast guard ships, which the barque "Kruzenshtern" almost pierced through with a bowsprit, and at the very slowest speed. According to the logic "no need for armor - it will be pierced anyway" it is necessary to stop armoring tanks (let alone armored personnel carriers - even more so!). Just go to the front line in the "Niva", with the gun on the trailer. Soon missiles on ships will not be needed - all problems will be solved by large-caliber machine guns. And the hulls are better made of composite putty, like in small yachts. Here's the speed - it will be! With a boat motor ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 September 2015 23: 26 New
                  +3
                  Quote: samuil60
                  According to the logic "no armor is needed - it will be pierced anyway" it is necessary to stop booking tanks

                  This thesis, of course, is biting, but absurd. The tank and the ship are in different environments and in a fundamentally different position.
                  By the way, the response slogan will be no less absurd: "Logically:" Armor is needed, I guarantee it !! "We must start booking fighter planes"
                  1. dokusib
                    dokusib 27 September 2015 03: 51 New
                    +5
                    I completely agree with you. Comrades comparing the reservation of a tank and a warship behave amateurishly. In the first case, we have a limited amount of damage which is critical for the survival of the machine. In the second, a huge target when hit in which damage will be caused but not necessarily leading to the death of the ship. On modern ships, and on WWII ships, combat posts and means of fighting for survivability are duplicated. One missile, even with a heavy warhead, does not guarantee the destruction of the ship. Having lost part of his fighting efficiency, he still remains dangerous for the enemy. The anology is about this: a tank cannot be driven by a gusli, but it shoots. COMRADES why no one is booking tank tracks! It is a crime! Put everyone on trial! (joke)
                  2. Per se.
                    Per se. 28 September 2015 08: 31 New
                    +6
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The tank and the ship are in different environments and in a fundamentally different position.
                    Dear Andrey, is it really a matter of what environment who and what is located in? It's about protection, be it a bulletproof vest for a soldier, tank armor or ship armor. By the way, fighter planes have and had armor, armored backrest and frontal armored glass, as a rule, are present. Attack aircraft also have more substantial booking. When talking about armor on modern ships, it is as if there is a "dialogue" between the deaf and the dumb. If a destroyer or cruiser can be sunk with a heavy anti-ship missile, and even more so with a nuclear weapon, the booking is considered absurd. But, excuse me, booking any light and heavy cruiser of the Second World War was useless from 305-406 mm shells of battleships, but the cruiser was nevertheless armored, because there were other threats that could and should have been neutralized and reduced. The same can be said about various modern means of destruction. If a "duralumin" destroyer, having a WWII cruiser tonnage, receives serious damage in situations where its steel "grandfather" would not have suffered in any way, so what else is there to argue about? It's not about armor for the sake of armor, but about reasonable protection, increasing survivability, in relation to new technologies and new challenges. The same "Peter the Great" could, indeed, have better protection, given its size. Who will "give a grudge" now, that nothing can be opposed to anti-ship missiles, that if Bismarck, Littorio or Yamato were now at gunpoint, they would easily be drowned with modern anti-ship missiles, especially when rearming and modernizing these battleships to meet the modern requirements? At one time in England, they argued for a long time whether it was better, a wheeled steam ship or a propeller one, the problem was solved by building two identical ships with the same power plant, but with different propulsion devices. The screw on the rope pulled the wheel. It is unlikely that now anyone will build an armored analogue of the "Orlan" for combat comparison with the existing one, but if you do not bend your heart, most of us in battle would prefer to be on a ship that would have provided the possibility of protection against anti-ship missiles.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 September 2015 22: 38 New
                      +2
                      Greetings, dear Sergey! hi
                      Quote: Per se.
                      But, excuse me, booking any light and heavy cruiser from the Second World War was useless from 305-406 mm shells for battleships, but the cruisers were nevertheless armored, because there were other threats that could and should be neutralized, reduced

                      Quite right! And if we recall the tasks of WWII cruisers, we will see that their booking (after the generation of "cardboard" ones) became quite adequate and made it possible to defend against 152-mm shells and even 203-mm (the same "dawn", and "Algeri" is good ) In other words, the booking of cruisers ultimately protected against light artillery from destroyers and leaders, and gave decent protection against light cruisers and, in some cases, even against heavy ones.
                      But to send even TKR into the fray against the battleship - some Japanese just thought of that, and then - at night :)
                      So booking cruisers, by itself, is by no means ultimatum, yet it had its own tasks. And what tasks will booking a modern ship have? Now destroyers / RKR - 6-8-10 thousand tons go, rarely more. Well, yes, if desired, such a ship can be booked at the level of the WWII light cruiser (having grown its cost and displacement), but what threats will this armor protect against? I do not see them. The modern naval war is a war of URO, here neither 70 nor 150 mm of armor (especially narrow belt zone) will give anything.
                      Quote: Per se.
                      If a "duralumin" destroyer, having a WWII cruiser tonnage, receives serious damage in situations where its steel "grandfather" would not have suffered in any way, so what else is there to argue about?

                      If you are talking about "Cole", then if the officer of the watch is alternatively gifted by nature, then no booking will help anymore :)
                      In general, I am not against booking. I just did not understand why it was for a modern ship.
            2. Aqela
              Aqela 28 September 2015 23: 11 New
              0
              Good remark. There is much to be said here, but the Vietnam War also showed (I mean the experience of using jet aircraft) that missiles cannot 100% replace a cannon. The mass of other discoveries following the results of that war will not be remembered. The bottom line is that any system has weaknesses in the same place as strengths. What's the saying? The disadvantage is the continuation of advantages?
              Like, according to logic: "Is the missile guidance system cut down? And we are fucking fiddling with a cannon!"
          2. Aqela
            Aqela 28 September 2015 23: 05 New
            0
            Right! For several millions of years, the nature of the girls’s device has made it uniquely optimal, so we shouldn’t talk about the design of girls, we can only talk about aesthetic topics, well, such as hair color, bust size, nose shape ... good love
            The design of warships is not optimal, therefore, a discussion of the device and development trends are appropriate. laughing bully
            What other points need to be discussed in the article about booking ships? And then I see so many leftist arguments ... fool
            In my opinion, the article is credible, reasoned. I read it with interest. From me - a plus.
            Let me note that many areas of the development of weapons systems begin to develop vigorously only about the appearance of motivated demand from warriors and technological capabilities.
            The same Fedorov assault rifle is a good example. When he developed an intermediate ammunition with a caliber of 6,5 mm. And now, a hundred years later: "Oh, how! The 6,5 mm caliber is optimal in terms of the combination of mass-size properties and ammunition power!" All sorts of grendel flooded ...
            A hundred years have passed. Just!
  8. BMW
    BMW 26 September 2015 08: 22 New
    +1
    The question is really controversial.
    I think that the armor will not appear, because there is a desire to reduce the dimensions of the surface of the ship, and increase the saturation of weapons, which will affect the growth of displacement. The author has forgotten the concepts of seaworthiness and buoyancy, which more significantly affect survivability than booking.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 26 September 2015 09: 52 New
      +8
      The question is really controversial. I want to turn to the experience of the Tsushima battle, and more specifically to the action of shells. There were many photographs of the shells getting into the ships of the Russian Navy. The Japanese had almost no armor-piercing shells. That's when it was decided to shoot high-explosive. Admiral Togo didn’t innovate. He forced him to. But the high-explosive shells struck everyone. fires. On the armadillo Oryol, the armor belt was practically not broken but the ship was not combat-ready. We will not analyze other reasons, we will focus on one, the armor belt. It became grate-bars attached to the dead man's legs. Fa In fact, armor did nothing to help the ships of the 2nd Pacific Squadron. During the years of the first and second world wars, another weapon entered the arena of war. Deep-sea homing torpedoes and guided aerial bombs and ships began to be hit above and below the armor belt. So why is it needed? Extra weight, stronger physical fields. A light armor cover is needed, but it seems to me that stability, seaworthiness, ammunition are much more important than heavy chain mail called armor, which does not protect anything. Yamato, Musashi, Roma and many more battleships of the 2nd World War died with a whole armored belt.
      1. boroda64
        boroda64 26 September 2015 11: 10 New
        +2
        ....
        - the thing is
        - that the shells / Russian /
        - were designed to explode when immersed in the thickness of the armor
        / but did not explode .. error /
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 26 September 2015 13: 43 New
          +1
          Yes! I know about this reason. I just didn’t take it into account. I read the reports on hits, on the results of shelling of the battleship Slava in the fortifications, in 1906 during the uprising in Sveaborg. Thank you for clarification.
  9. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 26 September 2015 08: 54 New
    +4
    Almost all modern warships carry 6-12 anti-ship missiles of different classes, allowing a specific instance to perform a combat mission. At the same time, none of them is deprived of the "last argument" - a 57-130 mm caliber gun with a universal ammunition load and a guidance system. After all, no one seriously counts on artillery duels !!! ??? Why not use displacement reserves for the "last resort" in the form of fragmented reservations?
  10. Olezhek
    Olezhek 26 September 2015 10: 04 New
    -10
    It was better to call:

    The Case of the Fascinated Armor ... or how cruiser Ukraine destroyed the matskalka crying
    Zrada in 2 parts with intermission.
    During the intermission gentlemen will be offered refreshments with snacks ...
  11. maxes
    maxes 26 September 2015 10: 09 New
    +4
    Why is there no reservation? Yes, because she nafig (!) Is not needed. Armor is effective against artillery shells and more. Against missiles, such armor is useless.
    Why?
    Because the rocket is not a dull projectile !!! And it is distinguished by the presence of "brains", control systems, complex guidance and target designation programs, algorithms for breaking through to the target. And all this is necessary for the rocket not to fly stupidly and fucking into the armor belt (also choose where it is thicker, right? wassat ).
    A missile is able to isolate and strike at a point where there is little or no armor, select a vulnerable point. To hit not at the armor, but at the deck (and you won’t make it solid at 400mm, the boat will turn over), and even at such an angle to accurately penetrate and reach the delicate giblets of any battleship.
    And if so, then it makes no sense to make armor similar to battleships on modern ships. Splinterproof or to reduce internal damage - any number, it is important and necessary. A solid armor belt - no.
    And active missile defense. Actually, as warships are being built now.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 18: 44 New
      +3
      The rocket is able to isolate and strike at a point where there is little or no armor, choose a vulnerable point. Beat not to armor, but to deck

      By the way - a very, very sensible idea.
      It is strange that I did not meet her earlier. Even on land, guided missiles / shells are now capable of hitting a tank from above.
      Really in the age of guided missile weapons have changed dramatically угрозы for the ship ...
      We will book it out, fill it in, and the rocket will go where we have not been waited.
      In general, it is obvious ... request
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 28 September 2015 23: 21 New
        0
        Bliiin! belay So that's what the dog rummaged around! fellow That's the fleet and the US army against the Japanese battleships so willingly used aviation! what fool
        And after some miserable 70 years after these events, people come and begin to explain to everyone that ships must be bombed from above! .. hi So there! drinks
        Thank you! We learned sorrowful and stupid.po.ry.lykh! But we did not even suspect that there was such a class of ships as an aircraft carrier ... request
        More revelations will be ???
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 29 September 2015 19: 58 New
          0
          that the ships from above must be bombed!


          Suddenly I will surprise - to get a bomb from an airplane into a moving ship into the sea is EXTREMELY difficult ...
          There was also the concept of top mast bombing - this is NOT to the deck ..
          Dive bombers are ELITE in any Air Force ... there are few of them
          Colleague - read more and you will be happy ...
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 29 September 2015 20: 36 New
            0
            Even during World War II, the Germans solved this problem and bombed 2 Italian battleships, one of which drowned.
  12. Denis_469
    Denis_469 26 September 2015 10: 14 New
    +3
    "At the same time, the thickness of the armor of the 26-bis cruisers does not exceed 70 mm and it is difficult to consider them" seriously "armored ships." is a misconception. Throughout the war, on the cruisers of that project, there were no penetrations under the armor of either bombs or shells. That is, the armor of ships was never broken through the entire war.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 September 2015 13: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: Denis_469
      "At the same time, the thickness of the armor of the 26-bis cruisers does not exceed 70 mm and it is difficult to consider them" seriously "armored ships." is a misconception. Throughout the war, on the cruisers of that project, there were no penetrations under the armor of either bombs or shells. That is, the armor of ships was never broken through the entire war.

      For your information:
      Project 26 "Kirov" August 27, 1941 hit of a large German shell in the stern of 9 dead 30 wounded, in April-May 1942 4 direct bombs and one artillery hit, There was a strong fire, including in artillery cellars, some of which had to be flooded to avoid an explosion. Many superstructures, the ship's reserve command post, part of the premises and pipelines were damaged. The cruiser killed 86 people, 46 were injured.
      "Voroshilov". In November 1941, the ship was attacked by fascist aircraft and received significant damage. After that, the cruiser was towed to Poti for repairs.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 26 September 2015 14: 15 New
        +4
        I would like to add. "On September 3, 1941, an aerial bomb weighing 250 kg hit the battleship Marat and pierced two armored decks and the battleship died according to all the rules from detonation of the ammunition magazines. It's good that it sank in shallow water, which allowed it to be partially restored and used as a floating battery.
      2. Ruslan
        Ruslan 26 September 2015 16: 02 New
        +2
        that is, the armor allowed the ships not to drown completely and save most of the crew. modern ships will not survive one hit. in fact, this is the main argument of the armor supporters: the crew has a chance to survive. nevertheless, I am inclined towards an active ship defense system: zur, zpu, eb, smokes, radar and infrared traps. transfer ships to maximum automation with min. people - 50 people are easier to save than 300.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 September 2015 20: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: ruslan
          that is, the armor allowed the ships not to drown completely and save most of the crew.

          For the gifted ....
          Quote: ruslan
          It’s good that it sank in shallow water, which allowed it to be partially restored and used as a floating battery.

          Those. how a self-propelled military unit ceased to exist !!!!!
          On 25 of December 1943 of the year, shells from British cruisers destroy the bow radar of the battleship Scharnhorst, which allowed the battleship Duke of York to drown the German together with the destroyers, because there was DEEP at the battle site !!!
          10 December 1941 of the year Japanese torpedo bombers and bombers for 1,5 hours drowned two battleships "Ripals" and the newest "Prince of Wales" !!!
          And for God's sake, stop grinding nonsense like he saved the crew, the purpose of the ship is not to save the crew, but to perform assigned tasks. And if you care about people, put on body armor and ..... leave them on the beach.
          1. Olezhek
            Olezhek 26 September 2015 20: 26 New
            0
            December 25 1943 shells from British cruisers destroy the nasal radar of the battleship “Scharnhorst”, which allowed the battleship “Duke of York” together with destroyers to drown the German

            Those. Duke of York SUDDENLY - Battleship? Armored or armored ??

            10 December 1941 of the year Japanese torpedo bombers and bombers for 1,5 hours drowned two battleships "Ripals" and the newest "Prince of Wales" !!!

            Well Ripals is not quite a battleship ...
            Most importantly, they had NO air cover ...
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 26 September 2015 20: 54 New
              +2
              Quote: Olezhek
              Those. Duke of York SUDDENLY - Battleship? Armored or armored ??

              For especially gifted astronauts.
              SUDDENLY The Duke of York is a King George V-class battleship. Armor, main belt 374 mm, turret 324 mm bully
              Quote: Olezhek
              Well Ripals is not quite a battleship ...

              what or battleship, or NOT battleship ... Vasya or not Vasya here does not roll yes
              Quote: Olezhek
              Most importantly, they had NO air cover ...

              ARRIVAL saved them from drowning or NO ???
              Kindergarten. right word good
              1. Olezhek
                Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 18 New
                +2
                SUDDENLY The Duke of York is a King George V-class battleship. Armor, main belt 374 mm, turret 324 mm

                Those. one armored ship sank another armored ship
                Do you want to say this?
                And what about the first main caliber maybe more so?
                Well, this is purely according to Kaptsov - one battleship bit the other - a weaker one.

                or battleship, or NOT battleship ... Vasya or not Vasya here does not roll


                Ripalz - British battlecruiser
                HMS Repulse was a Renown-class battlecruiser of the royal navy

                This is NOT a battleship. And yes - a big boat with cannons ...
                Do you know what kind of beast this battlecruiser is?

                ARRIVAL saved them from drowning or NO ???


                Soviet 1 KV tanks with impenetrable armor (theoretically) were easily destroyed by the Germans in the 41 (with the right approach from their side and with no infantry cover from ours)
                By itself, armor and 15-inch guns do not save anyone from anything
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 26 September 2015 21: 40 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Olezhek
                  Those. one armored ship sank another armored ship
                  Do you want to say this?

                  Well, if this fact is not interesting to you, then here's another one for you ... Bismarck Bismarck is drowned by ancient airplanes at a price comparable to one of Bismarck's anchors, and I want to note Sordfish is not an ARMORED airplane!
                  1. Olezhek
                    Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 47 New
                    +1
                    The battleship Bismarck drown ancient airplanes at a price comparable to one of the anchors of Bismarck, and I want to see Sordfish


                    They went in the second circle - Kaptsov already discussed this - in detail
                    1 They did not drown him.
                    2 He was simultaneously fighting a powerful British fleet ... and everything was hanging by a thread.
                    so this is toko a plus .. eti sordfish ...
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 26 September 2015 22: 45 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Olezhek
                      They went in the second circle - Kaptsov already discussed this - in detail

                      recourse Oh Oleg, we are already in the twentieth circle! It's not just that I rush to facts, I want to prove that we are all mortal and those who ride old Lada and those who drive a sparkling Ferrari, while the owner of the Ferrari has more chances to knock on the gates of the archangel Gabriel!
                      The First World War showed that artillery in its combat effectiveness took only third place, 67 ships were sunk by artillery fire. The second place was taken by losses from torpedoes - 80 ships, and the first place was taken by ships that were blown up by anchor mines. There were 107. At the same time, the share of submarines was 30% of the destroyed battleships and cruisers,
                      In the Second World ..
                      Japan - 12 battleships, 5 sunk by aircraft, 3 in artillery, 1 from a submarine, 1 most likely due to negligence.
                      USA-16 battleships, 5 sunk by aircraft.
                      England-17 battleships, 2 from submarines, 1 sunk by aircraft.
                      Germany-2 battleship. 1 ships + aviation; 1 sunk by aviation.
                      Italy-7 battleships, 2 sunk by aircraft
                      France-7 battleships, 1 sunk by aircraft, 2 ship artillery fire. 1 is flooded by the crew.
                      Summary
                      Losses from aviation: 17
                      Losses from surface ships: 7
                      Submarine Losses: 3
                      Other causes: 2
                      Total: 29 ships
                      Armor as anti-shatter. I am for it! Because from the shot down anti-ship missiles any rubbish of another kilometer 4-5 flies.
                      1. Denis_469
                        Denis_469 27 September 2015 10: 33 New
                        0
                        Incorrect arithmetic. From aviation to be considered as sunk by air bombs and torpedoes. And then it will immediately become clear that the main cause of death was torpedoes. In particular in Japan: only 2 were killed in the artillery attack. Your 3rd was sunk by torpedoes. Aircraft sunk not 5, but 3. both types of "Yamato" sank after being hit by torpedoes. As a result, in Japan the picture will look like this: torpedoes-4, artillery-2, aerial bombs-3, accident-1. Out of 5 battleships across the United States, 4 were sunk by torpedo hits and only 1 by air bombs. All 3 British battleships were sunk by torpedo hits. The fact that the aircraft sank the German battleship just learned from you, tk. "Bismarck" and "Scharnhorst" were sunk by surface ships with torpedoes. Therefore, it is immediately clear that the booking greatly cancels the air weapons (aerial bombs and missiles) and the main vulnerability of battleships comes from underwater weapons in the form of torpedoes. For example, if now a battleship of the "Soviet Union" type is built in Russia, then American carrier-based aircraft will simply not be able to sink it. do not have torpedoes. And all sorts of modern ZRAKs will prevent it from bombing with aerial bombs.
                2. dudinets
                  dudinets 26 September 2015 22: 27 New
                  +2
                  "Soviet KV 1 tanks with impenetrable armor (theoretically) were easily destroyed by the Germans in 41"
                  Well, not so easy. There are cases when a single HF delivered great trouble to the Germans precisely thanks to impenetrable armor.
  13. remy
    remy 26 September 2015 10: 24 New
    +2
    sane article! no questions!
    1. Rader
      Rader 26 September 2015 11: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: remy
      sane article! no questions!

      I join your opinion, a very interesting point of view was expressed by the author. In general, I agree with the author in everything, except for two points:
      1. Armor penetration of modern anti-ship missiles. On the same Granite, the cumulative warhead is installed more for the purpose of coarse focusing of the shock wave, rather than for the purpose of breaking through 400mm of steel. In the event a missile from such a warhead hits a ship with a classic reservation, all destruction will be localized within several rooms located directly behind the section of the armor belt, which had to be hit (yes, I agree with "that very Kaptsov" yes ) If it gets into Burke, it may break in half ...
      2.Even if the booking is "returned",
      Such armor will not come close to the parameters of WWII times and by weight.

      I would not be so categorical. Yes, this business is not "today" and not "tomorrow", and it will not necessarily revive the tradition of citadel armor, but anti-fragmentation bulkheads will not be limited to it ...
      hi
  14. sevtrash
    sevtrash 26 September 2015 11: 00 New
    0
    There are no problems as such. This is about the same as saying - why are there no sails on current ships? I exaggerate in part, but still. No armor needed, in any case in the form that was before. The main task of the ships now is the projection of force, participation in regional conflicts with such an enemy and / or at such distances that preclude the defeat of ships carrying weapons. Although it seems like Kevlar armor is still sometimes hung in some places.
  15. boroda64
    boroda64 26 September 2015 11: 07 New
    +1
    .......
    - another round of the "spiral of history"
    ....
    wait and see ... / read /
  16. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 26 September 2015 11: 21 New
    +3
    Project 1144 cruisers have a reservation. Weak, local, but they have.
    Compartment PU PKR P-700 “Granite” - walls above OHL of 100 mm, walls below OHL of 70 mm, roof 70 mm, cellar PLUR 85R - walls above OHL of 100 mm, walls below OHL of 70 mm, roof 70 mm, GKP and BIP - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm, helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, cellar of aviation ammunition - side walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 26 September 2015 11: 32 New
    +5
    Well, thank God, finally a normal technical analysis of all this "armored drill".
    And then the whole world is out of step alone Kaptsov and "his witnesses" in the leg.

    By the way, those who are trying to compare the booking of light cruisers fall into the same "heresy". For their armor is pure anti-fragmentation protection. firing at a moving target with an unguided projectile gives an extremely low probability of hitting, but the probability of being hit by shrapnel is quite high. Modern ASPs give the probability of a direct hit close to 1 and therefore make such an "anti-fragmentation" armored belt absolutely useless and require precisely the constructive protection of combat posts - which we are seeing today.
  18. kvs207
    kvs207 26 September 2015 11: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Amurets
    Without penetrating the armor belt, these shells inflicted severe damage to unarmored superstructures causing severe fires. On the battleship Orel the armor belt was practically not broken but the ship was not combat-ready. We will not analyze other reasons, we will focus on one armored belt. dead man. In fact, the armor did nothing to help the ships of the 2nd Pacific squadron.

    I wonder why then the battleships of the "Andrew the First-Called" type were completed with an increased reservation area compared to the original project?
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 September 2015 20: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: kvs207
      I wonder why then the battleships of the "Andrew the First-Called" type were completed with an increased reservation area

      That did not prevent the British torpedo boat from putting Andrey on the bottom of the Srednyaya harbor of Kronstadt.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 September 2015 18: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: kvs207
      I wonder why then the battleships of the "Andrew the First-Called" type were completed with an increased reservation area compared to the original project?

      But this is just the "echo of Tsushima landmines": after it, they tried to maximize the area of ​​the armor, even at the cost of reducing its thickness. Even the old ships were rebooked: for example, at the Panteleimon EBR, the armor belt in the bow and stern ends was extended with 25,4-mm plates - for the entire length.
  19. pimen
    pimen 26 September 2015 12: 27 New
    0
    and why it is impossible to increase the survivability of the ship with a two-hull scheme?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 September 2015 12: 51 New
      0
      It makes no sense. If both cases will be in the most lightweight version, then nothing will change from this.
      1. pimen
        pimen 26 September 2015 13: 16 New
        0
        why doesn't it change? If both hulls can (to some extent) keep each other afloat ... Then there is at least one extra missed strike
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 September 2015 14: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: pimen
          why doesn't it change

          Because the second building will be turned around by a blast wave.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 26 September 2015 13: 41 New
      +3
      The survivability of a ship is a very multifaceted thing - and often ships do not sink because of the loss of full buoyancy. In addition, the catamaran circuit, having its own advantages, also has its drawbacks - in particular, problems with the strength (read weight) of the "bridge" - and the larger the catamaran, the more serious this problem. So your proposal is not even a "hypothesis" - without very serious calculations it is impossible to say where we will win in this case where we will lose
      1. pimen
        pimen 26 September 2015 16: 26 New
        0
        well, it is not necessary to solve the problem of the strength of the "bridge" head-on: it can also have some buoyancy of its own, and then the submerged boat will resemble a raft, which is not even easy to turn over
        1. Assistant
          Assistant 26 September 2015 19: 09 New
          0
          and then the sunken boat will resemble a raft that is not easy to even turn over


          And then the water resistance will be too large. If he will stand in place most of the time - then it's normal. If you move - there will be too much energy.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  20. dumkopff
    dumkopff 26 September 2015 13: 21 New
    0
    Armor penetration of 400 mm? What do tank crews think about this?
  21. Zigmars
    Zigmars 26 September 2015 14: 42 New
    +3
    In my opinion, the thing is simply that armor with the advent of missiles ceased to effectively fulfill the function of protecting the ship, making booking over the entire area simply unreasonable (the ship turns out to be more expensive, more complicated, heavier). Only local areas are now being armored: shells of a relatively small caliber (say, 30 mm), even by flashing a thin hull, in principle, they are not capable of causing significant harm to the ship - at the same time, the most important units and compartments are still protected from them by bulletproof guns. Thus, the armor became sharply differentiated (a familiar tendency - isn't it ?!)
    The greatest threat in modern naval combat comes from large-caliber missiles and shells - but it's better to track them down and shoot them down than to endlessly build up an armored belt over the entire area of ​​the hull, waiting "where will it come from?" Modern ships have a radar that is much more effective at coping with protection - eyes and ears that track the trajectory of enemy weapons and, if necessary, send them towards them similar "weapons of destruction" - rapid-fire automatic cannon shells and missiles. The defense of a modern large ship is a layered air defense system based on complex computer simulation calculations. In my opinion, everything here is simple and clear as daylight.
    The main question, in my opinion, is whether the tendency of "abandoning armor" will continue in the near future? The answer is yes, it will. Because no armor today will save you from modern high-precision 5-6 anti-ship missiles flying to a ship (and it does not matter - large or small) along different trajectories. It must be admitted that armor as a piece of metal is inherently a passive means of protection, and therefore is becoming a thing of the past. By the way, the tank designers seem to have also come to the same conclusion.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 18: 52 New
      0
      Everything seems to be written correctly, but this:

      By the way, tank designers seem to have come to the same conclusion.
      belay

      The tank just breaks through the mass of damaging factors of low intensity.
      Like - the fragments of large projectiles, a waving wave, the fire of automatic cannons and large-caliber machine guns ..

      I'll look at your tank current with active protection ...
      Who needs him if he is stupidly "kicked" from outdated RPGs?
  22. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 26 September 2015 15: 17 New
    +6
    To be honest, I have drum armor issues.
    Whoever wants only passively to defend himself will be forever bit - the law is unchanged.
    In an article that was extremely professional and detailed, I AMAZED by the parameter - specific gravity density!
    A masterpiece parameter! All explains. Immediately and forever.
    And why - "iron ships, ships, vessels float," and do not sink, as I was tortured for a long time once. Because their density is up to 0,6 tons per cubic meter. Lighter than cork, damn it, (conventionally).
    And why it is so desirable to reduce the specific gravity in modern conditions. I explain -
    from modern means of destruction of protection, there is practically no constructive one. A rocket will make a haaaarosh hole. Anyway.
    So, water will begin to flow very quickly.
    As the emergency team swings, a mass of water will enter the enclosure.
    So - at a density of 0,400 tons per cubic meter, 600 kg of water should flow. To gurgle.
    And at a density of 0,6 tons per cubic meter - only 400 kg. The difference is one and a half times.
    As they say - count yourself.
    ....
    Great article.
    Thank you, Alex.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 19: 00 New
      0
      And why it is so desirable to reduce the specific density in modern conditions. I explain


      Colleague, I understand you - not a sailor, I, too ..
      So from flooding in case of flooding of compartments - one salvation - their haemity
      And it is necessary to block the damaged compartments - instantly (who did not have time - he became a hero.) soldier
      Well, as in spaceships / under boats, decompose breathing apparatus ..
      It should be happening automatically .. Also automatically, the power pumps start
      pump out the water ..
      Also, the ship shoob does not automatically overturn.
      In general - the struggle for vitality - there is something to think about today ...
      Automatic fire extinguishing, etc.

      A rocket broke through the bangnula - and in a matter of seconds the ship begins to struggle for survival.
      CAM ... then when people come to their senses, you can switch to manual mode.
      1. Bashibuzuk
        Bashibuzuk 26 September 2015 19: 27 New
        0
        Olezhek’s colleague, for some information, is a professional sailor.
        Drowning and flooding is certainly cool.
        Moreover - automatic systems ... pumping, pumping. As well as pumping and catching up.
        NOT invented more effectively the struggle for survivability than emergency teams.
        .
        And the issues of stability and anti-flooding of the compartments are a bit later, when the first "hole" is localized. Or not localized.
        ....
        When the ship is just starting to perform the K-1 task, then ALL the compartments are locked tightly.
        Relief, if any, will come later.
        .
        .
        It's just that Alexei first noted this term - specific gravity - in relation to the ship.
        It was amazing.
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 26 September 2015 19: 39 New
          +1
          The rocket will make a haaaar hole. So the water will start flowing very quickly.
          NOT invented more effectively the struggle for survivability than emergency teams.
          And the issues of stability and anti-flooding of the compartments are a little later, when the first "hole" is localized


          Sorry - if the rocket did haaaar hole and water gushing there ..
          THIS compartment / compartments save LATE - it needs to be isolated
          A powerful explosion, a blow - people just creep out of time for a while, then .. that emergency team will get there .. The first minutes will be lost even if there is a super team.

          And EVERYTHING this time water gushes into the hole ...
          the compartment must be insulated immediately.
          Otherwise it may be late.

          I do not see anything terrible if first minutes something is done on the machine.

          For some time, under enemy fire, the control of the ship on the bridge could simply have lost all of them killed / wounded / contused ...

          When control is restored, it is possible to save the ship a little late.
          ..fires inflamed with might and main, too much water has entered the compartments, smoke ..
          the ship starts to tip over ...
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 26 September 2015 20: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Olezhek
        Colleague, as I understand it, you are not a sailor, I, too

        Oh Olezhek, Olezhek, well, if you are not a sailor then you don’t need to bring spaceships as an example!
        Navy ship charter
        chapter xnumx.
        Ship survivability
        Each crew member is responsible for violating the rules and activities that ensure the survivability of the ship.
        353. The first one who finds outboard water, an explosion, a fire, smoke or steam, an emergency state of ammunition, an increased concentration of explosive and toxic gases (harmful substances) is required to announce an emergency alarm by voice in the compartment (room). By any means of communication, he must immediately report on the place and nature of the accident at the emergency control room or to the ship's duty officer (duty officer), and if this is not possible, to an adjacent compartment (room), and take measures to eliminate the accident (damage).
        Subsequent progress reports on the survivability struggle should go without requests or reminders from superiors. The ship's duty officer (officer on duty), having received a report on the accident, at the same time as ringing the alarm signal, is obligated to announce the emergency alarm with a voice on the ship’s broadcast indicating the location and nature of the accident (damage).
        No one has the right to independently leave the emergency compartment (room). The struggle for survivability is required to lead the entire crew of the ship, including persons temporarily on board the ship. The battle for the survivability of the ship in rooms not occupied by command posts and combat posts, as well as on the upper deck, is conducted by emergency parties (groups).
        Not only that, on each door and hatches of the ship there are signs indicating how this room should be closed, on alarm or permanently closed. And yet ... when a rocket or projectile hits, the power supply is interrupted and all the automation goes to smoke break hi
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 00 New
          +1
          Navy ship charter
          chapter xnumx.
          Ship survivability
          Each crew member is responsible for violating the rules and activities that ensure the survivability of the ship.
          353. The first to detect


          Wonderful - the situation - in the missile cruiser during a massive air attack, the enemy zafigachil three air-ship missiles. hitting the bridge, a powerful explosion in the energy compartment
          ship partially lost speed, mass of wounded, dead, fires raging on board am

          And here Serge with a flick of the wrist takes out a small green book of General Bezak ... soldier
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 26 September 2015 21: 21 New
            +3
            Olezhik go to the Naval College, turn, there you will be professionally taught to hammer chopiks, put down clamps and start a band-aid, while training in mental goodness will give pressure to the double side of the pool 10 points bully
            Quote: Olezhek
            No one has the right to independently leave the emergency compartment (room). The struggle for survivability is required to lead the entire crew of the ship, including persons temporarily on board the ship. The battle for the survivability of the ship in rooms not occupied by command posts and combat posts, as well as on the upper deck, is conducted by emergency parties (groups).

            And that would not be so ..
            Quote: Olezhek
            And here Serge with a flick of his hand takes out a small green book of General Bezak ..

            the crew’s action is brought to automatism and this automatism begins with the fact that the crucian is given time to familiarize himself with all the inscriptions along the route from the cockpit to the combat post. After a week of this, crucians are raised up in the middle of the night and so convincingly asked to tell what and where it is written, but if the fighter mumbles, then the race begins with the simultaneous study of the materiel soldier
            1. Olezhek
              Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 32 New
              -1
              the action of the crew is brought to automatism and this automatism begins with the fact that the crucian is given time to get acquainted with all the inscriptions on the way from the cockpit to the post of combat.


              I agree - and when the boat gets a small hole - it will all work

              But when the enemy is frying the main caliber of the ship (in this case, rockets)
              and the smell of burning fuel is mixed with the smell of burning human flesh ..
              When access to many compartments is blocked by twisted metal ..
              When the ship is really on the verge of death and a significant part of the crew was out of action ...
              When the fuel tanks rush about ...

              Automatism may not help you here ..

              Read for example what happened on the American / Japanese ships during the war
              in the Pacific, after receiving serious damage ...

              Do not confuse peacetime and war ...
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 26 September 2015 21: 48 New
                +2
                Quote: Olezhek
                But when the enemy is frying the main caliber of the ship (in this case, rockets)
                and the smell of burning fuel is mixed with the smell of burning human flesh ..
                When access to many compartments is blocked by twisted metal ..
                When the ship is really on the verge of death and a significant part of the crew was out of action ...
                When the fuel tanks rush about ...

                My friend, in this case, is given a team of rafts and boats on the water, to leave the ship. You Oleg drew a picture in which to save, then only the life of the survivors remained.
                1. Olezhek
                  Olezhek 27 September 2015 10: 45 New
                  0
                  My friend in this case, the command is given a raft and a boat into the water, the ship leaves.

                  Well, how would the Americans, for example, still kicking aircraft carriers abandoned in such a situation ... (WWII)

                  Armor is not interesting in itself - but as ship survivability facility
                  BATTLE SHIP!
                  The struggle for the survivability of a civilian vessel is not so dramatic ..

                  The question is not whether armor and skoko are needed - rather, as in the conditions of the modern war at sea, it is CONSIDERABLE to increase the survivability of a LARGE warship ....
                  The question is how and not how many armor plates ...

                  I wondered how to save the cruiser which has already hit several missiles and that is burning ...

                  Yappy under Midway, their aircraft carriers rescued to the last ..
                  This is a war .. and not a cruise tour on the warm seas ..
            2. Olezhek
              Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 43 New
              0
              And more ... when a rocket or projectile hits, the power supply is disrupted and the entire automatika goes to a smoke break


              I met information that a pair of British battleships in WWII was lost like this ....
              If this is a fight and this is a modern ship ... and electricity supply bye bye
              sad .... very sad
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 26 September 2015 22: 59 New
                +1
                Quote: Olezhek

                I met information that a pair of British battleships in WWII was lost like this ....
                If this is a fight and this is a modern ship ... and electricity supply bye bye
                sad .... very sad

                Why go so far? On May 14, 1986, the Odessa bulk carrier Kapitan Soroka in the Bosphorus makes a big hole in the board of the Berezina shipbuilding complex, the Elbrus rescuer that arose afterwards extinguished the fire for 4 hours, the Berezina fire systems were disabled.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 28 September 2015 18: 13 New
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Why go so far? On May 14, 1986, the Odessa bulk carrier Kapitan Soroka in the Bosphorus makes a big hole in the board of the Berezina shipbuilding complex, the Elbrus rescuer that arose afterwards extinguished the fire for 4 hours, the Berezina fire systems were disabled.

                  There is generally a classic case - the unforgettable Sheffield and the unexploded Exocet.
                  A missile even without a warhead explosion, with one kinetics and burning fuel, managed:
                  - disable 2 of 3 serviceable pumps of a centralized fire extinguishing system;
                  - kill the main fire line;
                  - break through the tank and set fire to fuel (as well as theoretically non-combustible plastic trim);
                  - de-energize the affected part of the ship - which immediately disabled the ventilation and smoke removal system.
          2. common man
            common man 26 September 2015 21: 28 New
            0
            In fact, the ship goes into battle with already battened bulkheads. Or not? And each member of the emergency team, like the entire crew, should know their actions as "our father". Even with a dull sleep, even with a hangover. Though just "drunk as a lord" wink
            1. Olezhek
              Olezhek 26 September 2015 21: 38 New
              0
              In fact, the ship goes into battle with the bulkheads already fenced in. Or not?


              Or yes. In practice, it happened in different ways.
              Different fleets.
              Well a peaceful American frigate brings prosperity to the Arabs - in the hands of terrorists in a motorboat ... wassat

              Attack can be FLASH .. am

              Or in the middle of the peaceful Indian Okiyan vdrukk pariskop and torpedo torpedo ... !!!!

              And if the crew is trying to recover after a powerful explosion ??
              Dumbfooted who can not see in the smoke?
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 26 September 2015 21: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Olezhek
                Attack can be FLASH ..

                laughing her, well, with amers this happens ... suddenly, from nowhere, a surprise appeared in his mouth.
                Quote: Olezhek
                Or in the middle of the peaceful Indian Okiyan vdrukk pariskop and torpedo torpedo ... !!!!

                what fiction in the style of Kaptsov.
                Quote: Olezhek
                And if the crew is trying to recover after a powerful explosion ??

                The ship is not an institution for noble maidens ... although anything can happen, on August 30, 1974, the midshipman sank the Otvazhny BOD out of fright
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 28 September 2015 18: 14 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Serg65
                  On August 30, 1974, the midshipman with fright sank the Otvazhny BOD

                  Yeah ... 18 seconds of panic - and the ship is at the bottom.
  23. Gomel
    Gomel 26 September 2015 16: 24 New
    +4
    kamikaze trail
    Impression of a Ki-51 "Sonia" kamikaze on the hull of the HMS Sussex. The Sonia (reported as a Val, as often happened), is said to have hit the water before hitting the hull, probably losing its bomb in the process.
    The imprint of the Ki-51 "Sonia" kamikaze on the hull of the heavy heavy cruiser Sussex. Sonya hit the water before hitting the hull, possibly losing her bomb in the process.
  24. Riv
    Riv 26 September 2015 17: 37 New
    +2
    The author is incomprehensible and wants a strange ... :)
    However, he noticed something right. The booking of a modern warship is inferior even to the booking of armored personnel carriers, not to mention the main tanks. How many "Abrams" lobsters are there? But the Abrams is killed by one successful hit from the Rapier's sub-caliber projectile. Not even rockets, but nine hundred shaggy cannons. "Tikonderogu" such a projectile will probably take off.
    Morality: what armor on the ship do not hang up - they will still pierce. Therefore, ships do not need to be set under fire. They are not even substituted, and active systems provide protection against missile weapons.
  25. dvg79
    dvg79 26 September 2015 18: 03 New
    +3
    The armor was removed because of nuclear weapons and they are in no hurry to return to force "the cock has not yet pecked." With regard to the cumulative warheads, well, there will be a hole in the side and what? The ship is not a tank, it is broken into a bunch of compartments through which you need to get to the cellars, why are our anti-ship missiles They burst like armor-piercing shells with a strong slowdown, and against armor this number will no longer roll - the missile will simply smear over it.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 September 2015 20: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: dvg79
      The armor was removed because of nuclear weapons and they are in no hurry to return to the force "the cock has not yet pecked."

      what wassat laughing good
  26. Forest
    Forest 26 September 2015 18: 04 New
    0
    I read the title - I already thought that Comrade Kaptsov again took up the old one) Soon Half of the articles on the topvar in the ship theme will be "armor to be or not to be, that's the question."
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 20: 19 New
      -2
      "Demons believe and tremble" (James 2:19) In fear of God, they naturally tremble. ...
  27. serverny
    serverny 26 September 2015 18: 40 New
    +1
    The question is raised by the same Kaptsov, first of all, not "WHERE IS MY FAVORITE ARMORED BELT ???!", As they like to distort and misinterpret.
    The question is why on modern ships almost completely neglected any means of constructive protection. Modern destroyers are 99% doomed to death / loss of combat effectiveness from one hit of anything with warheads above 300kg of explosives. Even a light torpedo will almost certainly put an end to the career of an arliberk. Frigates / corvettes / RTOs will not survive the hit of 1-2 exozets.
    And this is not due to the fact that the armor belt is weak, but because there are no anti-shatter and extinguishing wave of bulkheads inside. Extinguishing media are either ineffective or kill the team even in neighboring compartments. And it’s good if the ship itself is not built of their flammable materials.

    The main reason, in my opinion, is that the ships have not really fought for the last ten years (against equal / dangerous opponents) - this is the design idea that has stopped. Infantry and tanks after WWII were very actively used - and as a result we got anti-fragmentation helmets / bulletproof bulletproof vests / harnesses for infantry, DZ and KAZ for tanks built into the equipment + removal of the fighting compartment in the case of Armata.

    With the ships, the development stopped at the level "maybe they won't get into us" thanks to electronic warfare, ineffective and / or few anti-missiles.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 19: 27 New
      +2
      The main reason, in my opinion, is that the ships do not really fight for the last few years (against equal / dangerous opponents) —this design thought stopped. Infantry and tanks after WWII were extremely actively used - and we received as a result of anti-splinter helmets / bullet-proof vests / built-in equipment for the infantry,


      I agree - except for the war around the Falklands / Malvinov, nothing really was ...
      And yes, the ships are built, surrendered ... float, written off ..
      And their combat value is questionable what What Komrad Kaptsov and warns everyone .. in advance ...
      BUT "there is no prophet in his own country .."
    2. common man
      common man 26 September 2015 19: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: serverny
      Modern destroyers are 99% doomed to death / loss of combat effectiveness from one hit of anything with warheads above 300kg of explosives. Even a light torpedo will almost certainly put an end to the career of an arliberk. Frigates / corvettes / RTOs will not survive the hit of 1-2 exozets.

      I would go further. Now two or three (although in principle one is enough) small boats with 57-mm gun mounts gut Arlie Burke or Ticonderoga to smithereens. They will object to me, "but someone will give them a shot at a distance", but I think nothing is impossible. The missiles have limited ammunition. And they will not always walk in a heap led by an aircraft carrier. But if it comes out, this 57-mm boat will smash the destroyer as "small".
  28. Megatron
    Megatron 26 September 2015 18: 56 New
    -1
    Where is Kaptsov then? Is silent?
    1. Rader
      Rader 27 September 2015 00: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Megatron
      Where is Kaptsov then? Is silent?

      No! He has already started writing the "counter-article"! wink laughing
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 27 September 2015 10: 49 New
        +2
        In the meantime, Komrad Kaptsov on a self-made armored car quickly approached an American frigate in the warm and gentle waters of the Black Sea ... laughing

        Just typing in Yandex - Kaptsov Bracket armor ....
  29. Kvazar
    Kvazar 26 September 2015 19: 18 New
    +3
    It would be necessary to sprinkle the article, so enchanting delusions that on the one hand that on the other hand I have not read for a long time. In this case, all distort each other. The whole discussion is similar to the adoption of MBT tanks in the early 50s. When some people shouted what for us armor if everything pierces it (from 85mm kuma, to artillery shells from 100mm, and the tank doesn’t ship him one piercing through the eyes) Practice has shown that in addition to economic efficiency there is also a psychological factor. And that the effectiveness of tankers without armor is orders of magnitude lower. Because they are not samurai and just do not want to die, and they think more about their own survival. If you make a comparison. All modern ships from the destroyer to the cruiser, these are in the modern world Marines, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles. There are currently no tanks in the modern fleet (to be more precise, these are US aircraft carriers (we’ll reserve the reservation in 50 years) our kuzia and Petra. Aptam of delirium on a modern armor frigate for 400 tons of Kevlar and plastic. Yes, its function is shatterproof. There’s more It’s not realistic to shove in. Comparison with granites as PCR is generally ridiculous. How many do they have? How many countries? How many av and ground launchers?
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 19: 50 New
      0
      The whole discussion is similar to the adoption of MBT tanks at the beginning of 50. When some shouted what for us armor if it pierces everything (from 85mm kums, to art shells from 100mm, and the tank does not ship him one piercing through the eyes) Practice has shown that in addition to economic efficiency there is also a psychological factor.


      Ischo times: a tank on a battlefield is in a fundamentally different situation: de facto bullets fly
      (and bullets fly bullets, the commander gives orders, the soldiers sit in the trenches, because
      bullets fly) fellow
      PRM remember - so how can he presses guns ... in both!
      But right now, not the First World War - there is everything on the battlefield - (I'm just lazy to list all means of destruction
      artillery, infantry and aviation)
      And from the MORE part of these weapons the tank's armor saves !!!
      A tank is such a vile beast that you have to shoot it specially !!!
      compare the infantryman in ATTACK and the tankman (on the tank) in the same attack ...
      Do infantrymen to fig chance to die by accident.
      If a tanker is put in, it is intentional ...

      Ship in principle in a safer situation ... theoretically at least
      .
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 27 September 2015 11: 22 New
        0
        Um, how would I tell you. BMP protects against 30mm armor-piercing in the forehead and 14.5 in the side. Modern protect against light RPGs in a circle. T15 in the forehead is armored better than the T14 tank. And they already hold heavy expensive birds in the forehead and all kinds of RPGs in the barrel. I pointed out to you above that armor does not save locally from all weapons. At the beginning of the 50s, when the MBT was created, the armor did not save 85mm from the kuma, the only tank in the world that held a 128mm projectile in the forehead (not a crowbar) and the 85mm cum projectile was an ob.279 tank (which looks like a UFO). But I can also tell you, using tanks as an example, that a modern tank is covered with armor by about 50% (they go there for 80% of hits), the remaining 50% of the tank’s forehead are weakened areas .... The author correctly pointed out that modern ships went from destroyers. And the armor there is it is shatterproof from Kevlar and plastic, it is simply useless and physically impossible to book them stronger. side and deck as well as reservation settings (of course, it’s not a monolith, but cells with composites) are produced only on large and very expensive ships. With a displacement of 20 and above thousand tons. And these are aircraft carriers only and cruisers (Peter was supposed to carry a 200mm armor belt but did not work out) Effective booking can be obtained on ships with a large displacement, which they do. Missile battleships will be in any case, due to the fact that air defense systems have now reached the level at which they can destroy AWACS aircraft. But another problem arises: the cost of a missile battleship will be approximately equal in value to a full-fledged aircraft carrier. And you can afford such toys (you still need a whole bunch of ships, including an aircraft carrier in the group) A few countries can. Because technology there need a sea and a cart. The Russian Federation has technology, but there is no money for it, the EU has technology, but again there is no money. The USA is both that and another they do not need it they have enough AUGs. India has no technology and no money. China has no technology (they have money). Therefore, we’ll see armored missile battleships in the next 50 years. There is one chance, one of the countries will build a monster and open a new round of the battleship race. Something like this.
    2. Alex_59
      28 September 2015 08: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Kvazar
      Comparison with granites as PCR is generally ridiculous. Many who have them? How many countries? How many av and ground launchers?

      949 Ave., 8 units x 24 = 192 missiles
      Ave. 1144, 2 units x 20 = 40 missiles
      Total on all 232 rocket carriers.
      Tell me how many harpoons, exosets? Different level. Granite is just one name for a rocket, in fact an unmanned aerial vehicle with the rudiments of an artificial intelligence.
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 28 September 2015 11: 47 New
        0
        949 ... five boats in the fleet = 120 missiles.
        1144 One piece of 1x20 = 20 missiles.
        1143.5 Kuzma 1x12 = 12 missiles (in general, on the Kuzma they are "a bit" out of order).
        Plus, you forgot that there are no guidance satellites for them ... (they live 48 days in total).
        Total: 152 missiles.

        Harpunov? A total of 7200 pieces were produced. In the ranks of the ships they have 2 launchers of 8 harpoons on all ships. Only Arly Burke carry 62x8 = 496 missiles. They are in service in 20 countries (every second who has a fleet)
        Exosets produced 3300 pieces are in service in 25 countries.

        I will translate into an accessible language. Only TWO anti-ship missiles produced 10500 pieces. Even if half of them have already been written off, these are 5250 missiles that are in service with 20 countries of the world that the fleet can afford. If you add here all the other RCCs in the world, the balance will be 1 to 100 at best ....
    3. Alex_59
      28 September 2015 15: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Kvazar
      949 ... five boats in the fleet = 120 missiles.
      1144 One piece of 1x20 = 20 missiles.
      1143.5 Kuzma 1x12 = 12 missiles (in general, on the Kuzma they are "a bit" out of order).

      Exactly, I also forgot Kuzmu. As part of the fleet, I consider those who are in repair or technical reserve, so 8 949А and 2 1144.

      About harpoons and exosets. Initially, they were not created to hit targets larger than a destroyer frigate. They were not made to defeat class 1144, 1164 or 1143 ships. Therefore, they can be quiet and a million on all media, because there are a million goals for them and all are not armored (and were not armored!) And most importantly - they will never be armored in the same dimensions. It is impossible to put serious armor on a ship with a VI less than 10 thousand tons. (for now).
      Granites and Basalts were created to strike at AUG, which in the world 10-12. And AB never lost their armor, they are now armored. Ships class aircraft carrier - a heavy cruiser or even a battleship - piece goods. To combat them, piece missiles were made at the cost of almost a fighter-interceptor. But made to penetrate armor with a guarantee.
  30. Olezhek
    Olezhek 26 September 2015 19: 22 New
    +1
    But the purpose and role of such a booking is completely different than that of the WWII cruisers. Prevent any penetration of armor from the warhead of the PCR PKR today is capable of, but to reduce the effects of this penetration completely.


    Thank you - the article is literate ..
    HOWEVER - armor against all sorts of different heavy machine guns and automatic guns - absolutely necessary ..
    Otherwise, some Pyrat boat will be able to drink the blood of a "super cruiser" ...
    You can NOT guarantee the absence of a number of small dangerous vessels ..
    You can't just shoot everyone with nautical miles from 10 ...
    Arabs will not understand wink
    1. Alex_59
      28 September 2015 07: 01 New
      0
      This is not a question of booking, but of normal anti-sabotage protection. If, like on the destroyer "Cole", you free it, then no armor will save you, because the Arabs will stuff the boat with just three times more dynamite.
      The opposite example is the Nikolai Vilkov large landing craft, which does not even have the weapons that were on the Cole EM. True, it was not blown up and it was not in the port that it was, but the fact that nothing came of it and could not come out, because the service at the BDK is set at the level.
  31. Wasiliy1985
    Wasiliy1985 26 September 2015 19: 43 New
    0
    Well, thank you! The real reasoned answer to Kaptsov! And rightly so, that a separate article! The essence of the article is that armor is needed, but not bulletproof, but bulletproof - ballistic!
    And yet - as well as apart from Kaptsov, there are both ideologists and designers in this world. This article is another confirmation of this ..
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 26 September 2015 20: 05 New
      +3
      Nicho - this is what Kaptsov will show up .. and all those who have renounced armored cruisers and superdreadnoughts
      Bitterly regret it ...
      You know when Moses came back from MOUNTAINS the Jews ALSO danced around the Golden Calf.
      but their joy was short-lived ...

      For there is no Sea God except Yamato! And Oleg Kaptsov is His Prophet !!!
      Tremble wrong ...

      (it was a joke if someone from an armored train)
  32. LMaksim
    LMaksim 26 September 2015 19: 53 New
    0
    And the answer lies in the penetration of modern warhead anti-ship missiles. The presence of an armored belt 150-200 mm thick does not fundamentally solve the problem of protecting the ship.

    In principle, everything is logical and correct. But I had one question. Theoretically, it turns out hypothetically that if a small boat with several AK-630 installations (for example) finds itself in such a large miracle monster that does not have armor, then theoretically it will be able to riddle any large ship with its AK-630. Now we do not take into account the probability of such a vessel approaching a modern warship intact. Just wondering what will happen if a ship without armor meets a ship with guns? Personally, I am for there to be at least some kind of reservation on the ships. Otherwise, any boat with a pair of DShK, KPV or automatic guns becomes a problem.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 September 2015 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: LMaksim
      theoretically, he will be able to riddle any large ship with his AK-630.

      Yes, not theoretically, but maybe. It’s not possible to drown, the size will not allow, but it is quite possible to grind expensive equipment into garbage.
      Quote: LMaksim
      what will happen if a ship without armor meets a ship with guns

      The meaning of missile weapons is not in the power of missiles, but in their range. Missiles can destroy the enemy at a great distance, but at a short distance artillery will be faster.
      1. Alex_59
        30 September 2015 08: 23 New
        0
        Since the underwater volume of the hull is ALWAYS equal to the displacement of the ship, the "coefficient" that you deduced is ALWAYS equal to one :) For ALL types of ships :)) Why do you care so much about Archimedes' law? :)))
        Well, the article was written in half an hour, so it can be fun. :-))) In any case, this does not cancel the basis of the article, because armored ships are loaded much more heavily and have greater draft with the same width and length. Load the modern RKR to the same parameters with armor and you will get the same LCR of WWII times. The only question is - why the heck?
        "Kirov" is NOT a HEAVY but a LIGHT cruiser. And don't be fooled by the international classification.
        I am aware of the classification and other London and Washington conferences. And that the USSR was not invited there and he could build what and how he wanted - too. The point is not that, but that even if we call the cruiser of the 26 project even a battleship, in fact its reservation is absolutely ridiculous. Even 26 bis - 70 mm armored belt is not serious.
        Of course you are smiling now - they say a connoisseur was found, he considers himself smarter than the whole world. But I ask you to still give me a moment of attention.
        No, I'm not smiling at all and I'm ready for constructive criticism, unlike some writers here who "give you battleships, period."
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 30 September 2015 21: 29 New
          0
          Are you answering this to me?
      2. Alex_59
        1 October 2015 07: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Dart2027
        Are you answering this to me?

        Not. :-) The answer was not right, it was a dialogue below with Andrei from Chelyabinsk. Kosyachok ...
  33. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 26 September 2015 20: 12 New
    0
    It is clear that armor is a controversial issue, but there are times when a cruise missile simulator breaks through the hull and starts a fire, although it was shot down by ACTIVE PROTECTIVE MEANS, nothing can withstand the direct hit of modern anti-ship missiles since the warhead there is quite massive and smells very good, but from fragments of already shot down missiles need to hide behind something. 30mm is enough for these purposes, especially since modern materials can significantly reduce the mass of armor, since a composite of several steel grades is much better than a solid sheet of rolled hardened armor, and even modern combined armor is something with something, it’s enough on the site of the Research Institute of Steel come in and the hair stand on end, there are so many interesting things. Yes, and once Tirpitz attackers attacked, so it would not be bad against bullets either, it’s better to die under dashing commandos, it’s better to shoot at them from under the AK cannon, lose the ship from a couple of hundred armor-piercing incendiary bullets .
  34. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 26 September 2015 20: 39 New
    0
    I met an article in Popular Mikhanika magazine: "Flying Pike: The Most Effective Anti-Ship Missile". http://www.popmech.ru/weapon/8364-letayushchaya-shchuka-samaya-rezultativnaya-pr


    otivokorabelnaya-raketa / # full
    This is an excerpt from it.
    ".... At the beginning of November, the tests of KSShch missiles were transferred to the Balaklava area, where the citadel (central part) of the unfinished heavy cruiser" Stalingrad "was used as a target. Prior to that, artillery and torpedo firing was conducted on the" Stalingrad "compartment, and the aviation practiced all types of bombing. During the shooting, the team did not leave the target. It was believed that the armor of "Stalingrad" (side - 230-260 mm, deck - 140-170 mm) will reliably protect the crew. On December 27, 1957, the missile, having flown 23,75 km, hit into the side of "Stalingrad". As a result, a figure-eight hole appeared in the side, with a total area of ​​55 m² .... "
    The missile was with an inert warhead.
    There, in the article, there is still a lot of interesting information about target defeats - ships with this missile.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 28 September 2015 15: 10 New
      0
      Yes, as much as possible. Already dismantled. Mute there was a penetration through 55 squares. This is a comma error.
      A maximum of 620 mm broke a hole with a steel bar, which was.
  35. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 September 2015 21: 32 New
    +2
    The article, alas, is far-fetched no less than that of Oleg Kaptsov, just the other way.
    Especially admired this:
    There are armored ships whose relative density is close to that of missile ships. True, the reservation itself of such ships can be considered tending to zero. This is a 26-bis project cruiser - 0,46 tons / m3 (as in 1164). Moreover, the thickness of the armor of the 26 bis cruisers does not exceed 70 mm and it is difficult to consider them “seriously” armored ships.

    The "tending to zero" armor of the cruiser 26-bis weighed 1536 tons or more than 17% of the cruiser's standard displacement. And this is without taking into account the armor of artillery
    Specific gravity is generally a "masterpiece". It's scary to even ask how the author managed to calculate the volume of this or that ship ...
    1. Alex_59
      28 September 2015 06: 40 New
      0
      The author (I) - does not hide that he is an amateur. The specific gravity is still yes, a masterpiece and I even agree that it is stupid. I managed to calculate the volume by multiplying the length, width and draft of the hull by keel - I got an approximate volume of the underwater part. Then he divided the total displacement into this volume. The result was an amateurish way to quickly get an approximate specific gravity. What is characteristic, this parameter calculated for approximately 40 ships gave a result that fits into a very narrow gap, and with a break - one gap for the modern, the second, not coinciding with the first - for armored ships.
      As for the armor, 26-bis is "tending to zero" in absolute numbers, not as a percentage of VI. 70 mm is not serious armor for a WWII heavy cruiser. And the 26-bis is a heavy cruiser. carries the main caliber over 152 mm.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 September 2015 22: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        second (I) - does not hide that he is an amateur.

        I apologize for having attacked you like that.
        Quote: Alex_59
        I managed to calculate the volume by multiplying the length, width and draft of the hull by keel - I got the approximate volume of the underwater part

        That was what I was afraid of.
        Dear Alexey, In your way it is TOTALLY impossible to estimate the volume of the underwater part. For one simple reason - length / width / draft does not take into account such a thing as a coefficient of completeness. Those. a ship of equal length and width, depending on the contours of the hull, can have a completely different volume of this hull itself.
        On the other hand, the volume of the underwater part is determined elementarily. The ship's displacement is the mass of water that the ship displaces :))) if the ship has a displacement of 10 tons, it means that it displaces 000 tons of water. And since the volume of 10 ton of water is equal to 000 cubic meter, the volume of the underwater part of the hull will be exactly 1 1 cubic meters :))) Displacement in tons will always be equal to the volume of the underwater part in cubes :)))
        Now you understand what you wrote? :) Since the underwater volume of the hull is ALWAYS equal to the ship's displacement, the "coefficient" you deduced is ALWAYS equal to one :) For ALL types of ships :)) Why are you so disregard for the law of Archimedes, do you? :)))
        Quote: Alex_59
        As for the armor, 26-bis is "tending to zero" in absolute numbers, not as a percentage of VI. 70 mm is not serious armor for a WWII heavy cruiser. And the 26-bis is a heavy cruiser. carries the main caliber over 152 mm.

        "Kirov" is NOT a HEAVY but a LIGHT cruiser. And don't be fooled by the international classification.
        The problems of the international classification of those years were that they were completely useless and completely contrary to the principles of classification of warships.
        Of course you are smiling now - they say a connoisseur was found, he considers himself smarter than the whole world. But I ask you to still give me a moment of attention.
        ALL international classifications have served ONE SINGLE GOAL - the limitation of naval weapons. For such a restriction, it was necessary to somehow agree on the classes of ships, and it was very difficult, because the class of the ship directly depends on the tasks that this class performs, the tasks depend on the country that sets them for itself. Therefore, for example, the Italian and English light cruisers, by definition, could not be similar to each other. The British needed a colonial ship capable of plowing the oceans of the planet and protecting British communications, while the Italians needed a high-speed (to withstand French walkers) ship, which does not really need seaworthiness, etc.
        Well, all sorts of conferences there tried to comb the ships one size fits all. It was, of course, ridiculous - one LIGHT cruiser "Belfast" could easily disassemble a pair of HEAVY cruisers "Almirante Brown" for spare parts.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 September 2015 22: 09 New
          0
          So the 26-bis was designed for the typical tasks of a light cruiser. His performance characteristics were selected so that he could perform the tasks of a light cruiser :) He had to smash the enemy's light forces, be able to fight with a light cruiser, reconnaissance, etc. And from this point of view, we have an excellent project. the deck of 50 mm and the side of 70 mm provided acceptable protection against 152-mm shells, while the 180-mm guns 26-bis, the typical armor of the WWII KRL could not withstand (even the best of them, perhaps) But at the same time the ship had a very high speed (what speed 26-bis showed daily trustworthy information did not come across, it was true that the speed was low, but if so, then this is a question for the Italian turbines) At the same time, the cruiser turned out to be far from a giant - the displacement of other "light" cruisers of the WWII left for 10 thousand tons. PTZ 26-bis was magnificent - although formally there was nothing except for the "second bottom", but the structure of the hull (a bunch of small technical compartments along the sides) provided excellent survivability.
          In general, the ship was created for the tasks of a light cruiser, in terms of performance characteristics it completely fulfilled its tasks, in terms of size (and cost) it was still the average representative of the KRL - and what place would you like to sculpt the international classification here? What, this classification would oblige the Soviet sailors, contrary to common sense, to climb heavy cruisers?
    2. Alex_59
      1 October 2015 07: 53 New
      0
      Since the underwater volume of the hull is ALWAYS equal to the displacement of the ship, the "coefficient" that you deduced is ALWAYS equal to one :) For ALL types of ships :)) Why do you care so much about Archimedes' law? :)))

      Well, the article was written in half an hour, so it can be fun. :-))) In any case, this does not cancel the basis of the article, because armored ships are loaded much more heavily and have greater draft with the same width and length. Load the modern RKR to the same parameters with armor and you will get the same LCR of WWII times. The only question is - why the heck?
      "Kirov" is NOT a HEAVY but a LIGHT cruiser. And don't be fooled by the international classification.

      I am aware of the classification and other London and Washington conferences. And that the USSR was not invited there and he could build what and how he wanted - too. The point is not that, but that even if we call the cruiser of the 26 project even a battleship, in fact its reservation is absolutely ridiculous. Even 26 bis - 70 mm armored belt is not serious.
      Of course you are smiling now - they say a connoisseur was found, he considers himself smarter than the whole world. But I ask you to still give me a moment of attention.

      No, I'm not smiling at all and I'm ready for constructive criticism, unlike some writers here who "give you battleships, period."
  36. dokusib
    dokusib 27 September 2015 05: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: dokusib
    I completely agree with you. Comrades comparing the reservation of a tank and a warship behave amateurishly. In the first case, we have a limited amount of damage which is critical for the survival of the machine. In the second, a huge target when hit in which damage will be caused but not necessarily leading to the death of the ship. On modern ships, and on WWII ships, combat posts and means of fighting for survivability are duplicated. One missile, even with a heavy warhead, does not guarantee the destruction of the ship. Having lost part of his fighting efficiency, he still remains dangerous for the enemy. The anology is about this: a tank cannot be driven by a gusli, but it shoots. COMRADES why no one is booking tank tracks! It is a crime! Put everyone on trial! (joke)

    And if we seriously carry out some anology, let's remember about the active protection systems such as "Trophy", "Arena" and "Afghanit". They are only being introduced, but if their indisputable combat effectiveness is proven, I risk assuming that in ten years the armor of tanks will be weakened. At the same time, neither the ammunition load nor the volume of the fuel tanks will increase, nor will they install another cannon or machine gun. What for? Saving mass is an advantage in itself. Increasing speed, cross-country ability and power reserve. And ten years later, Comrade Kaptsov's grandson will write articles on "cardboard tanks" on TopVara (again a joke)
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 27 September 2015 10: 51 New
      0
      They are only being introduced, but if their indisputable combat effectiveness is proved, it is a risk to assume that in ten years the reservation of tanks will be weakened.


      Not a fact - the tank on the battlefield has something to save except anti-tank weapons ...
      1. dokusib
        dokusib 28 September 2015 02: 30 New
        0
        For instance? Why should a tank be afraid besides ATGMs, RPGs and anti-tank guns? Or rather, what kind of weapon hits the tank in the forehead and sides. Where does the tank have the most powerful armor?
  37. Olezhek
    Olezhek 27 September 2015 12: 31 New
    +1


    Oleg Kaptsov is dedicated to Imperial Japanese Navy ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 27 September 2015 18: 53 New
      +1


      Happy is only dead! Planes are flying
      The guns rumble and the tanks go;
      Jets of bullets whip, living ones tremble,
      And mountains of corpses are growing.

      Going out to sea - corpses on the waves
      Will you go out into the field - corpses in the grass
      My Emperor, we are dying
      Not looking back, not regretting.

      Happy is only dead! The bones are white
      Bloodshot poured poppies bloom
      The sun is sparkling, we are advancing
      And mountains of corpses are growing.

      Going out to sea - corpses on the waves
      Will you go out into the field - corpses in the grass
      My Emperor, we are dying
      Not looking back, not regretting.

      Happy is only dead! Friend we are with you
      Sakura branches, together and here.
      We won't be back, taking off at dawn
      And mountains of corpses are growing.

      Going out to sea - corpses on the waves
      Will you go out into the field - corpses in the grass
      My Emperor, we are dying
      Not looking back, not regretting.
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. Olezhek
    Olezhek 27 September 2015 13: 51 New
    0




    And ischo for lovers of heavy ships ..

  40. moreman78
    moreman78 27 September 2015 15: 56 New
    +3
    The only "minus" to the article was apparently Kaptsov!
    1. Rader
      Rader 27 September 2015 18: 39 New
      0
      Quote: moreman78
      The only "minus" to the article was apparently Kaptsov!

      Oleg Kaptsov - the property of the resource "MILITARY REVIEW"
      I always read his articles with interest (he has a good syllable repeat ) Well, reading komenty under his articles is a pleasure (they have everything: from sound ideas to frank delirium and srach wassat )
      So if there is no "counter article" from Oleg, I will be a little disappointed wassat hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
  41. bk0010
    bk0010 27 September 2015 20: 10 New
    0
    Add my 5 cents:
    1) Smart people said that the information on booking modern ships was stamped. The specific figures given can be taken from the ceiling. Apparently, the evolution of armored belts -> citadel (for American battleships) -> local armor continues. Even Admiral Makarov (it seems) at one time suggested abandoning the reservation and moving to constructive methods of ensuring combat stability.
    2) Regarding the number of carriers of "Granites" and their analogues. The number of Granites carriers significantly exceeds the number of active battleships. There will be ends, there will be means. In addition, if we recall history again, we will see that when the battleships appeared, there were no armor-piercing shells. And to fight them, the caliber of the guns was increased so that the cannonballs could not pierce the armor, but destroy the ship, shaking the whole armor plates. I have a suspicion that a seven-ton rocket flying up at 3 speeds of sound, even if it does not pierce the armor, will destroy the side.
    3) About the uselessness of a cumulative projectile in a sea battle. A cumulative projectile can penetrate one meter thick armor, but it has insufficient armor-piercing effect (in sea conditions). To solve this problem, you can easily create a marine analogue of "Bumblebee": a shaped charge penetrates the armor, then a thermobaric explosion occurs, crushing in a closed room and in the absence of wind.
    IMHO, on ships it is necessary to put armor that provides protection from 76-mm shells inclusive, so that only another combat ship could damage the ship, otherwise a tug with a 35-mm machine gun on deck can now turn any ship into a sieve.
    Regarding survival after undermining 300 kg of charge. IMHO, this is not real. Relate the mass of charge in a dashboard or mine to 300 kg. Such an explosion under the side, even the battleship can not stand it. I want to remind you that battleships were single products with exorbitant price and cost of operation. It was a strategic weapon, they tried to limit and reduce them. As soon as the task of securing domination became possible to solve by other means, they were abandoned. Now their role was taken by the nuclear submarines. If you recall the last maritime conflict (England-Argentina), you will see that because of the nuclear submarines the entire fleet of Argentina did not dare to go to sea (except for the sunken cruiser). And they even had an aircraft carrier. The aircraft tried to say their word, but at the limit of their range and due to the lack of normal missiles, they could not achieve anything critical. The British conducted the MAO in practically greenhouse conditions.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 27 September 2015 23: 12 New
      +1
      1. Yes, it is stamped in composition and placement. The maximum mass is known, and the type (often very vague, cells, yes, has such a composition, well, etc. The level of boning itself and the scheme can be found in twenty years later when the next generation goes to landfill.
      2. Heavy RCCs have problems. Mass, we need a special guidance satellite, cost (there is a lot of technology there even for this moment to repeat the problem), we need special media. the difference between approaching the order of 100 missiles in three echelons and 24 in one echelon is not small. That is, such countries can create such missiles. Even fewer can afford them. Yes, the collision and probit type will be. The consequences will be different. Granite was honed, including WWII battleships, and LUGs were equal to AUGs in terms of missile consumption. The problem is still that.
      3. Not quite right, that directed explosion (there should actually be an impact core) Granite had a 12 meter breakdown, while undermining the side into the deck at an angle. So more destruction.
      4. As history has shown, large explosions can also withstand explosions. Small ships of 15k tons, even armored ones, experienced such hits very sucks (undermining in the below deck space) A piece of the ship could also be torn off. But they didn’t sink at the same time (usually it was a power set, this is a minimum of a year of repair) An explosion at the side of even a modern unarmored ship very rarely leads to sinking.
      5. Bad example. If that air force of Argentina was engaged in mast bombing, because the exoquette missiles were malt and suddenly on the NATO ships did not work) Bookmarks rule. Because of this, the scandal was then ....
      PS You correctly said that the level and composition of the reservation of ships is one of the most classified. And all underestimate him, or brazenly lie that he is not at all. One example of Discovery shows how to build a boat. At the same time they say that there is no armor so plastic and Kevlar on computers ..... for 400 tons)
  42. bk0010
    bk0010 28 September 2015 01: 43 New
    0
    2. However, heavy RCC is the only option guaranteed to push Aegis. There are few carriers for them, but there are even fewer worthy goals.
    5. I did not make claims against the Argentine Air Force, they did everything they could. I talked about the fact that the British nuclear submarine ensured supremacy at sea, the Argentine fleet simply did not leave the base. Previously, battleships were used for these purposes.
  43. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 28 September 2015 10: 56 New
    0
    Where is Oleg? Let there be srach !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  44. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 28 September 2015 18: 49 New
    0
    armor = weight. weight = reduced stroke. who needs a slow-moving armored turtle?
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 28 September 2015 20: 28 New
      0
      Everything comes from tasks. There was the task of participating in a linear battle - they set armor. The task was to ensure that the raider could compete with the ships of the convoy - they set armor. Now a linear battle is not planned, and the armor (within reasonable limits) will no longer help the raider, they will not even put it. Rather, they do not make either an armored belt or a stronghold.
      1. Urfin
        Urfin 29 September 2015 11: 24 New
        0
        Nevertheless, I believe that even if a linear battle (taking into account the replacement of guns with missiles) were planned, the armor would not have appeared.
        An armored ship even at the Yamato level, armed with modern weapons, would lose combat capability without breaking through the armor and staying afloat.
        And in conditions when a linear battle of equal rivals implies an exchange of nuclear strikes, there will be nowhere to return to the ship for repairs. It is in this that the factor of nuclear weapons for the fleet is manifested.
        Kaptsov rightly pointed out in one of the articles that booking would be very helpful in local conflicts.
  45. bk0010
    bk0010 28 September 2015 20: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Kvazar
    Yes, as much as possible. Already dismantled. Mute there was a penetration through 55 squares. This is a comma error.
    A maximum of 620 mm broke a hole with a steel bar, which was.

    Yes, yes, I don't care about the witnesses, about the documents. "The boys and I decided," and that's it, the hole in the side has decreased 10 times.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 29 September 2015 23: 54 New
      0
      For a start, before licking the argument, you would read the witnesses, and not vyser the journalist from the popular mechanics who gave birth to this article in a couple of hours (about 55 square meters of the opposite side torn out in a piece 5 by 11 apparently)))) from there. If that rocket hit the joint of the decks gave a ricochet (it caused a lot of destruction of cast iron then) and got stuck in the section. At the same time, neither before nor after the crew was removed from the target section. According to the results of the tests of the krsc, conclusions were drawn (more precisely, they were confirmed from krk). The use against warships of the WWII (all with armor, since the basis of the fleets were) with a displacement of more than 18kt is stupidity. The conclusion of the second cruiser Stalingrad is designed at a high level (otherwise you will sink the hell). But if you read about the target aircraft carrier (unfinished German aircraft carrier Zepelin). And how they tested it (there was very little armor). It's a shame for the modern fleet, really shame. And we owe this shame to three things. That air defense only after 50 years has only reached that it can shoot down carriers of medium anti-ship missiles (and AWACS aircraft). TNW. And the prohibitive cost of ships. If the state has babos in the amount of 20 lard bucks cash and technology. And he needs to project power in the ocean. First of all, it chooses AUG between the choice of LUG and AUG as a more flexible instrument and a "longer arm". Plus it's cheaper to upgrade. There is simply not enough money or technology for Lugi (he still needs a cover aircraft carrier ala Kuzya in the group in any case.
  46. Michael - 235
    Michael - 235 28 September 2015 21: 20 New
    0
    The information presented is not specific and it missed the design basis of any ship, which is based on the continuous and constant consideration by the entire design team of the weight load of the newly created ship, which is tightly controlled by the weight accounting system, thereby ensuring the stability and unsinkability of the ship and all performance characteristics.
    And the problem of the eternal confrontation between weapons and means of defense fits into such a scheme and is coordinated by the chief designer of the project coordinating with the Customer both seaworthiness and means of protection and means of destruction.
  47. Urfin
    Urfin 29 September 2015 09: 57 New
    +2
    Nevertheless, the author is a little mistaken in the reasons for the lack of armor.
    The purpose of armor is not only and not so much to make an object invulnerable, but how to make means of destruction overly expensive and vulnerable. An example with tanks: increasing the thickness of the armor did not make any tank invulnerable, but it was easier to miss a 45 mm gun than a 75 or 85 mm gun, whose beds buried in the ground after a shot, significantly reducing the mobility of the gun.
    The armor on the ship could protect against other weapons, allowing you to concentrate air defense on heavy missiles that are easier to shoot down. But why?
    The thing is different. Beginning, probably, from 2MV, the volume of equipment that allowed the ship to remain a full-fledged combat unit increased so much that it was impossible to book it. Quince’s armor was essentially meaningless - shelling with HE shells without breaking through the armor would deprive the MSA ship and it would become unworkable. That is, in order to withdraw a ship from battle, it is no longer necessary to drown it or turn it into a pile of mangled metal, as it was in Russian-Japanese.
    Therefore, it makes no sense to book a ship for the third world war, when the ship will be incapacitated, but afloat, but there will be nowhere and nothing to repair it. There is no reservation.
  48. Urfin
    Urfin 29 September 2015 10: 05 New
    0
    Both debating authors, for some reason, think that ships need to be almost drowned. What for?
    Serious damage to the superstructure at Burke or Peter the Great will allow them to remain combat-ready and use their weapons?
    And how many tons of armor will be required to protect the superstructure from at least anti-aircraft missiles?
  49. Urfin
    Urfin 29 September 2015 10: 20 New
    0
    As soon as the volume of necessary equipment and facilities providing combat readiness is reduced to acceptable values, the armor will return by itself.
    Missile dreadnought will appear and there will be a sunset of aircraft carriers.
    Experts would write on the subject of volumes and a list of such equipment so that it is clear what needs to be reserved and how much it will weigh. And then it would be interesting to argue.
  50. mrDimkaP
    mrDimkaP 11 October 2015 00: 09 New
    0
    And yet, why not book if there are no significant negative effects? This is not super-expensive, as far as I know. Is there a difference between breaking through and penetrating only one third of the hull? Not too big, but still ...
    1. _KM_
      _KM_ 14 October 2015 11: 55 New
      0
      Any armor is expensive and it increases the ship's displacement, which is also money. It is also unclear from which threat to book. Just evenly "smear" is not an option.