Military Review

Armor, shells, ships

154



As proof of the high penetration ability of modern ammunition, cadres with the destruction of reinforced concrete shelters are often cited.

But how big is the real armor piercing of modern weapons? Where is the limit, and is it at all? Due to what modern designers have achieved such impressive results, surpassing the dreadnought-era armor-piercing shells, possessing only low-speed thin-walled ammunition, with coeff. content close to 30%?


GBU-39 planning bomb against 1,8-meter overlap


Despite the broken concrete and destroyed caponiers of Iraqi airfields, the author of this article is convinced that all existing missile models (as well as any possible “armor-piercing” variants based on them) are not able to penetrate the array of armored steel in any effective way.

Reasons to think so? Here they are.

High-precision air-to-surface missiles of the X-29 type are the most common ammunition for this purpose, in service with the domestic Air Force. The missile is equipped with a high explosive penetration warhead 9B63MN with a mass of 317 kg containing 116 kg of explosive.

Combination of speed more than twice the speed of sound and very heavy and a solid warhead Provides high penetration capability to the warhead. This allows effectively destroy highly protected objects, such as concrete structures or surface ships. Before the detonation of the combat load, the rocket is able to penetrate the order of 1 m of concrete, covered with 3 meters of soil.


Of course, the two speeds of sound were exaggerated: the average flight speed of the X-29 is 250-350 m / s.



In the characteristics of the missile there is no information about what will happen with the warhead when it encounters an obstacle of Krupp-grade armor steel.

But we know what happened with their weight and size counterparts in the form of artillery shells.

What if you equip the X-29 with a combat unit in the form of a German 283 mm caliber armor-piercing projectile? (The choice is due to the availability of all the necessary data for further calculation.)



So, in the drawing to the left is an armor-piercing projectile with a bottom fuse for an 28 gun, see SKC / 28 (the main caliber of “pocket battleships” of the Deutschland type). Weight 300 kg. The filling ratio 2,6% (as much explosive, by weight, is contained in the body of the projectile).

Ideal replacement for a regular warhead 9B63MN missiles X-29. Diameter and weight are the same. Speed ​​- 300 m / s.

According to the universal Krupp formula for the calculation of armor penetration:

τ = 5,6246 · 10 ^ -3 * [ρ (V / C) ^ 2] ^ 5 / 8 * D ^ 1 / 4,

where ρ is the mass to cube ratio of the caliber, V is the speed, D is the caliber. Coefficient C is taken from the German manual G.KDOS.100 "Theoretical foundations and guidelines for the selection of the optimum range and types of projectiles." For Krupp armor “new type” and shells “Deutschland” it is 804.

If you multiply everything correctly, you get 0,45.

This is a very bad prediction for those who have just reported that X-29 is able to effectively destroy highly secure objects. If she had a warhead in the form of a heavy-duty German projectile, she would have hardly penetrated Krupp armor, the 0,45 thickness of its caliber (~ 130 mm).

The filling ratio of the standard 9B63MH warhead is ten times greater than that of the Deutschland’s projectile. Even with all the power of modern technology and the use of tungsten superalloys, there is no reason to hope that fur. The strength of the warhead of a modern rocket will remain at the level of a solid-bodied “blank” with a filling of 2%.

As for the rest of the rocket elements (homing head, microcircuits, aluminum shell - by weight up to 300 kg), all this has nothing to do with armor penetration (you can just beat a laptop on the rail with the same success). All this will be crushed and turned into dust. And there are great reasons to believe that the “heavy-duty” warhead of any modern missile will turn into dust, and its fuse will surely fail if an unexpected meeting with Krupp's armor steel occurs.


Solid ammunition of considerable dimensions

Strange. After all, just that X-29 easily broke through a meter of concrete covered with three meters of soil. Is there really such a big difference between concrete and steel armor?

The answer is yes. Most of us can not imagine what terrible power lies in an array of high-strength alloy steel.

To explain the paradox, you need to look for simple, visual comparisons. Here, for example, antique oak table. Durable and durable wood with a light brown tint and beautiful texture on the cut. For processing requires a lot of effort. Brinell oak wood hardness reaches 4 kgf / mm2.

For comparison: the hardness of structural steel STS (shipboard armor of class “B”) is 240 kgf / mm2.

4 and 240. Silent scene.

And some appreciate the armor-piercing missiles to overcome concrete and soft soil! Yes, such a soil can be excavated with his own hand, using a shovel shovel.

Armor, shells, ships


For this reason, nail guns so easily “drive” nails into walls. But do not even try to hammer a nail into a steel door. Do not forget about the rule of thumb: the resistance of a steel plate is directly proportional to the square of its thickness. Which further complicates the situation.

Therefore, such a heated discussion causes a dispute “Kalash punches a rail”.

Of course, not all the rail along - from Moscow to Vladivostok. And only a thin rail neck thickness 18 mm. Approximately as a splinterproof bulkhead on WWII ships.

The answer has been known for a long time: when using 7,62 bullets with a heat-strengthened core and observing a number of conditions (rigidly fixed “target”, necessary distance, hitting strictly at right angles), the rail neck may break through. With less careful preparation of the experiment, a rebound in the stomach is obtained. At the same time, there is not even a pothole on the rail body itself!

Steel barrier thickness of the entire 18 ... 20 mm could reliably protect the equipment and the crew of the ship from most fragments.

Well, this is by the way. There is still a lot of interesting.

It is logical to assume that where class “B” armor existed, there was class “A” armor with even higher hardness and strength characteristics. And this is just STS (Special Treatment Steel), the level of 1930-ies.

Currently, engineers can offer a whole range of measures to improve the security of objects: new steel grades, composites, and technologies with unique properties.

For example, the latest development of the British military laboratory DSTL - perforated armor Super-Bainite. According to the author of the technology: “It is necessary to consider perforation, not as a set of holes, but as an array of solid edges. When a bullet collides with such a face, it deflects in flight, turning from a sharply directed percussion means into broken fragments. Perforation improves efficiency and reduces weight. ”.



With the rational use of such means, it is possible to ensure an unprecedented level of protection of military equipment - first of all, warships.

Finally, how to deal with the undermining of the warhead on the armor. Will the detonation of 116 kg cause a powerful blaster (using the X-29 warhead as an example) to cause catastrophic destruction in the structure?

The answer to this question was known to Italian combat swimmers from X flotilla assault funds. Preparing to fight the British TKR and battleships, they created a special sabotage tool - a breakable boat stuffed with 600 kg of TNT.

In advance directed at the target and abandoned by the crew, he independently broke up at the side of the enemy ship and plunged into the water. The explosive charge was undermined by a hydrostatic fuse at a depth of 8 meters.

Obviously, the Italians knew something. That the surface explosion of the armored belt is ineffective and will not cause the ship any noticeable harm. Most of the blast wave will just scatter in the air.

Epilogue

The dispute on armor and armor-piercing ammunition has long gone beyond talking about the protection of warships.

Armor loses projectile? Not obvious. What once again proves an increase in the mass of land armored vehicles and the continuous improvement of their passive protection. At present, the only more or less reliable way to overcome protection is the “rays” of cumulative ammunition.

All this works against compact targets, whose booking does not exceed several cubic meters. meters But will it not be that all existing means will be powerless when meeting with a large highly protected object?

In a dispute, the truth is known. The most interesting physical paradox, opening new pages of the military stories and creating new technologies. In the discussion of previous articles, you, dear readers, suggested several brilliant ideas, each of which is worthy of a separate article (and, possibly, an entire dissertation).

And, of course, it is necessary to think about improving the security of floating “treasuries” (only 18 countries in the world are richer than the Orly Burk destroyer squadron).

Author:
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 9 October 2015 06: 42 New
    +9
    Twenty five again ....
    1. igordok
      igordok 9 October 2015 08: 14 New
      +15
      The author is easily identified by the title of the article.
      1. smershxnumx
        smershxnumx 9 October 2015 10: 26 New
        +1
        Autumn has come ... laughing
        1. srelock
          srelock 9 October 2015 11: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: smerx24
          Autumn has come ... laughing
          Yes, and Friday ... laughing
        2. Che burashka
          Che burashka 9 October 2015 13: 48 New
          +4
          So I read this and realized that with each new line I understand nothing more ...
          What did the author try to prove with this opus? Is alloy steel harder than concrete? What concrete bomb can not penetrate armor? What do we need to return to conventional shells and conventional armor? Or just trying to show the level (very average) of your knowledge?
          1. To combat armored targets since the Second World War, there are special types of charges. As an example - cumulative. A caliber projectile even of 45 caliber even then allowed very effectively to fight with the Tigers and Panthers. And that was over 70 years ago. I hope the author understands that over the years, science and technology have gone far ahead and stupidly increasing the mass of reservations will not solve anything.
          2. High alloy steel is really much harder than concrete, but hardness and strength are not the same !!! As an example, diamond is the hardest mineral on Earth, but if you carefully cut it with a hammer (it would be fun to see laughing), then he ... will split. Based on the logic of this article, it would be optimal to build ships from diamonds.
          3. Even if the idea of ​​building such a high-alloyed monster is born in some kind of diseased brain, do you have any idea, dear author, how much such a mastodon will cost ??? I do not think that even the richest countries will be able to extend such a construction.
          4. How will IT float (ride if land)? What engines and chassis will be needed? How much IT will eat fuel? How many people will be needed to serve this? Maneuverability, with such a mass, will be like that of the Himalayas.
          And with all of the above, IT can be sent to the scrap a pair of missiles with the corresponding warhead. Or one missile with TNW warhead.
          Elegant prospects to lower several annual budgets of the country into the toilet!
          PS I think I understand! The author just loves science fiction very much. For example, "The Big Black Ship." Then the article on the topic! fellow
          1. srelock
            srelock 9 October 2015 16: 46 New
            +3
            Quote: Che Burashka
            PS I think I understand! The author just loves science fiction very much. For example, "The Big Black Ship." Then the article on the topic!

            The author, just himself on the “battleship” and resolutely does not understand what people in all countries realized 70 years ago hi
            1. Zulu.S
              Zulu.S 25 January 2016 02: 44 New
              +1
              About 15 years ago, a book about Kronstadt caught my eye. It described in detail the evolution of fortifications. At a certain stage, the walls of some forts were lined with armor plates (over granite). This is the second half of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, they replaced it with a concrete-soil combination as more effective. With a certain ratio of concrete thickness and soil sprinkling, this method was out of competition. Talk that land can be unearthed with a simple shovel is bewildering. Against such an "argument" no more stupid would be "open autogenous safe."
          2. avdkrd
            avdkrd 9 October 2015 20: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: Che Burashka
            Even if the idea of ​​building such a high-alloyed monster is born in some kind of sick brain, can you even imagine, dear author, how much such a mastodon will cost ???

            In the history of the 20th century, mastodons made of armored steel (highly alloyed) were built a lot, in Japan and the USA there are dozens of them. The author tries to justify the low survivability of modern ships in comparison with his older classmates and the invulnerability of the latter with modern cruise missiles. The author neglects the specialists of the world design bureaus who do not think so and is trying to attract physics to his point of view. In 1943, the Germans sank the Italian battleship Roma with the FX1400 bomb (3 hits). Not a cruise missile, of course, the “armor-piercing performance” is just against the battleships, but the point is that it coped with the armored deck of the battleship perfectly.
            In 1944, the light cruiser Spartan, already Hs293 (already a cruise missile in our understanding) with the usual high-explosive part, was sunk. The armor of “Spartan” is certainly not about -76mm, but one rocket was enough.
            So what am I talking about - the trajectory algorithms of modern RCCs are very different. There are attackers exclusively from above (make a slide), there are attackers aboard and below the waterline, there are penetrating warheads, and there are cumulative ones. Designers easily adapt the flight profile on the attacking site to the "mastadont" - you can’t overweight it all with super armor. In addition, there are supersonic anti-ship missiles and for them even 250 mm of armor will not be a defense for penetrating (armor-piercing warheads).
            The armor belt of course will provide some protection against subsonic missiles, but we live in the atomic age and make a target out of armor steel, when a potential adversary is guaranteed to use nuclear weapons is a waste of time.
            PS Armor is probably a must for ships of fire support for landing, especially in colonial operations, but these are no longer destroyers and cruisers.
          3. Ladoga
            Ladoga 9 October 2015 22: 40 New
            +6
            In short, from Kaptsov he is strong, like a footballer from Novodvorsk.
          4. gladcu2
            gladcu2 10 October 2015 19: 49 New
            +4
            Che burshka

            You yourself wrote what? Are you joking?

            The author has an alternative opinion. And common sense is present.

            One can argue with something, agree with something.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Ladoga
        Ladoga 9 October 2015 22: 37 New
        +2
        ,, For this reason, nail guns so easily “drive” nails into the walls. But don’t even try to hammer a nail in the steel door. ,,

        I can argue with the author on anything that if he has a steel door, the entrance, for example, then I undertake to make a hole in it in any projection anywhere. Up to 5mm steel plus 5cm concrete.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 10 October 2015 05: 49 New
          +4
          12mm can be beaten to the door to this door
          1. Santa Fe
            10 October 2015 21: 53 New
            -1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            12mm can be beaten to the door to this door

            About the quadratic dependence of resistance on thickness?
          2. avdkrd
            avdkrd 21 October 2015 15: 29 New
            0
            In his youth, he completed internship at the ANOF 3 processing plant. Colossal-sized workshops on load-bearing metal structures. I did not see such a section of the channel anywhere after. We shot into the light with an assembly gun the shelves we needed in the workshop for metal. The pistol is really powerful - under a cartridge with a rifle caliber sleeve.
    2. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 9 October 2015 11: 30 New
      +12
      .... Again twenty five ....

      ... Kaptsova again suffered .... Not surprised ... A superficial knowledge of the subject is his corporate identity ... What it costs: ".... Brinell's oak wood hardness reaches 4 kgf / mm2.

      For comparison: the hardness of structural steel STS (shipboard armor of class “B”) is 240 kgf / mm2.

      4 and 240. Silent scene ..... "

      Hardness and strength are slightly different things .... And they are not always interconnected .... Moreover, Kaptsov operates with statics and not dynamics .... He probably does not know the high-pressure physics at which materials do not behave completely ( far from it), as at normal pressures ....
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 9 October 2015 20: 53 New
        0
        "Solid ammunition of considerable dimensions" wink
        Strong ammunition pierces half of its length and not the diameter (as written in the pack).
        Therefore, BOPS - such an awl, and not rolled into a pancake.
        In the last picture, they forgot to draw a foremast with a forward-looking TV camera, as it is now on container ships that have a superstructure on the back.
      2. Ladoga
        Ladoga 9 October 2015 22: 47 New
        +2
        Here I am about the same! Pontus and the ambition of the author of the article are excessive, and all this is polished with a lack of science, they say, everything is clear and there is nothing to argue about.
    3. Juborg
      Juborg 9 October 2015 17: 40 New
      +1
      No, the author’s inflamed brain, from an excessive mind, can still not spit. It turns out the brain of this genius, replaced the entire states of the defense KB. No, in fact, let's not think badly about our engineers and defense industry. I think there people are sitting smart and reporting what they are doing and what the army is asking for.
    4. Malkor
      Malkor 11 October 2015 09: 27 New
      +4
      Again one balabolstvo. If they would pay for debunking the arguments of graphomaniac Kaptsov, most of the readers would be enriched.
      For example - what does the average rocket speed have to do with it - at the target it goes to the marching section and develops maximum speed in order to overcome the area of ​​possible air defense actions as quickly as possible.
      The energy of a projectile weighing 300 kg and a speed of 650 m / s (close to two speeds of sound) is 6337000000 Joules
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 11 October 2015 11: 32 New
        +1
        seems to pay him ...
      2. Locksmith
        Locksmith 8 February 2016 08: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Malkor
        The energy of a projectile weighing 300 kg and a speed of 650 m / s (close to two speeds of sound) is 6337000000 Joules

        sturgeon then trim wink enough and 63375000 J
        http://www.guns-review.com/calculator/energy_calculator.html
  2. Urfin
    Urfin 9 October 2015 07: 00 New
    0
    I asked in the comments for other articles, but did not receive an answer. I will ask more specifically.
    So, what needs to be protected on Peter the Great so that he remains combat-ready? How much is the volume of armor that protects against harpoons with a conventional warhead (non-cumulative) and freely falling bombs weighing 250 kg, will weigh?
    A combat-ready it means will be able to use its main weapon.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 October 2015 07: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Urfin
      So, what needs to be protected on Peter the Great

      I'm not going to even consider Peter (Tiku, Burke)
      they are designed so that the constructive protection is no longer put
      in the first place - due to the large lengthening of the body and too bulky add-ons
      Quote: Urfin
      How much is the volume of armor that protects against harpoons with conventional warheads (non-cumulative) and freely falling bombs weighing 250 kg, will weigh?

      How much will the amount of armor weigh?
      The answer is 0,5 liter
      1. Urfin
        Urfin 9 October 2015 07: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I'm not going to even consider Peter (Tiku, Burke)
        they are designed so that the constructive protection is no longer put
        in the first place - due to the large lengthening of the body and too bulky add-ons


        I did not ask how to install armor on Peter. I asked what needs to be protected on it. That is, what needs to be protected on a ship whose main weapon is anti-ship missiles.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How much will the amount of armor weigh?
        The answer is 0,5 liter

        I don’t get it now. Is this a nit-picking mistake, not an understanding of participles, or just rudeness?
        1. Santa Fe
          9 October 2015 07: 43 New
          -5
          Quote: Urfin
          I asked what needs to be protected on it.

          engine room, ammunition cellar, combat information center
          Quote: Urfin
          not an understanding of participles or just rudeness?

          It was rudeness

          and the participial momentum has nothing to do with it. You measure volume in units of mass
          1. Urfin
            Urfin 9 October 2015 08: 14 New
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It was rudeness

            sadly ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You measure volume in units of mass

            uh ... "How much will such a volume weigh?" - This is a question of weight, not volume size.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            engine room, ammunition cellar, combat information center

            What about radar equipment?
            That is, it turns out that the list of equipment and facilities providing the use of modern missiles is almost the same as that necessary for the use of artillery in visual guidance?
            If so, then certainly the armor will fulfill its task without a significant increase in mass. But is it?
            1. Santa Fe
              9 October 2015 08: 47 New
              -1
              Quote: Urfin
              What about radar equipment?

              combat posts, signal processors, generators - everything inside the citadel
              external antenna posts (fixed HEADLIGHTS) - protected by the very layout of the ship
              Quote: Urfin
              But is it?

              at least so far no one has been able to prove the opposite
              1. K-50
                K-50 9 October 2015 10: 25 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Quote: Urfin
                What about radar equipment?

                combat posts, signal processors, generators - everything inside the citadel
                external antenna posts (fixed HEADLIGHTS) - protected by the very layout of the ship
                Quote: Urfin
                But is it?

                at least so far no one has been able to prove the opposite

                It seems to me that it is worth taking a closer look at active defense complexes, similar to tank ones, but with a greater range and power of protective ammunition. and something tells me that the gain will be not only in the saved mass of protection, but also in its reliability and cost. All the same, several thousand tons of additional displacement and cost are not at all in favor of the ship and its design.
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 9 October 2015 10: 40 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                at least so far no one has been able to prove the opposite

                "Harpoon" signify a nuclear warhead, "Harpoon" hits the ship directly, from above, at an angle or vertically. The place of contact of the rocket with the ship will be the epicenter of a nuclear explosion, at the epicenter of a nuclear explosion the temperature is about 10 million degrees, the melting point of tungsten is about 3,5 thousand degrees.
                Can an armored ship remain operational in these conditions?
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 9 October 2015 10: 59 New
                  +3
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Can an armored ship remain operational in these conditions?

                  Oleg did not think about it. This is beyond his evidence ... Because for every tricky item there is a thing with even trickier bells and whistles. yes
                  1. Urfin
                    Urfin 9 October 2015 12: 35 New
                    +8
                    A harpoon with a nuclear warhead is, of course, cool. But a harpoon is a subsonic missile and equipping it with a nuclear warhead is a waste.
                    If we start talking about an appropriate missile for nuclear weapons, then we will talk about a supersonic (and preferably hypersonic) missile. And this is an increase in mass, rocket price and, accordingly, mass and carrier price. And this in turn will lead to a decrease in the number of rocket carriers.
                    As a result, it may happen that weapons of destruction become disproportionately more expensive than targets. And then even if the armor breaks through, it will be absolutely necessary, since there will be more targets than weapons.

                    Understand, in the end, by the example of tanks. The question of the expediency of tanks arose not because the means of their destruction appeared - they were ALWAYS - but because they (anti-tank weapons) became light, cheap and affordable (RPGs, etc.). And even after that, the tanks retained their combat significance, because the tactics of using tanks came to the rescue, which reduces the likelihood of using anti-tank weapons.
                    Same thing with ships. If the armor makes the weapons too expensive, then it is needed. If she makes the ship inadequately more expensive than the means of destruction, then she is not needed - this is the question.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 9 October 2015 16: 03 New
                      0
                      Quote: Urfin
                      If we start talking about an appropriate missile for nuclear weapons, then we will talk about a supersonic (and preferably hypersonic) missile.

                      A subsonic rocket can fly above sea level, at an altitude of 10 meters, the speed of sound is slightly more than 150 meters, hypersonic at an altitude of more than 15000 meters, according to the capabilities of modern locators, the most suitable subsonic option, since it will most likely be detected at the latest stage of combat action.
                      1. Aqela
                        Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 06 New
                        0
                        What was that?
                        The speed of sound is slightly more than 150 meters

                        Meters per second? Meters per hour? Meters per year? Inches per century? At what altitude and at what atmospheric pressure? fool
                        And people issuing such an explanation are rolling a barrel on Wikipedia ??? request
                        Next:
                        hypersonic at an altitude of more than 15000 meters

                        Again: what was that? And how does all this compare with the topic of discussion?
                        Of course, I agree that the author of the article has piled the garden from the point of view of arguments, comparing almost the sort of ice cream with the speed of flight of a fly to it, but, forum users, most of the discussion below is not nearly any better. Some crap and fuss in the sandbox.
                        There was a question about the amount of armor. Well, the answer is not entirely accurate, but the zh.ob.skom rudeness in response looks very dumb and worthless. What, the armor belt has ceased to have a volume, or did the author of the objection forget that there is a formula for calculating mass from a known volume by the density value? The person wants volume - name the volume, but not half a liter! If there is an inaccuracy, then tell about it, but to show yourself as hamlo and zhlo.ba what for ???
                    2. gladcu2
                      gladcu2 10 October 2015 20: 20 New
                      0
                      Urfin.

                      The question is posed quite logically. Just the answer is mixed.

                      Presumably, the armor is not in first place in the means of protection of the ship. Given the modern means of destruction.
                      Partial booking is probably applied.
                    3. Zulu.S
                      Zulu.S 25 January 2016 03: 11 New
                      0
                      Is a missile more expensive than a cruiser? It’s you, old man, bent! For armored vehicles - various means of active protection, for the ship - air defense systems.
              3. cth; fyn
                cth; fyn 9 October 2015 13: 35 New
                +1
                Moreover, the missile can be guided by a third-party gunner, and not by the ship itself, if only it would shoot, and the target will be illuminated.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 October 2015 13: 55 New
            +7
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and the participial momentum has nothing to do with it. You measure volume in units of mass

            Hehe hehe ... here and there thickness armor is measured in pounds.
            In the USA and England, weight measures of the thickness of the armor were often used, when instead of the thickness of the plate the weight of 1 square inch of armor in pounds was indicated. Corresponding values ​​were indicated with a "#" after the value. Every 40 # (40 psi) corresponds to about 1 inch of thickness, but the exact value in principle depends on the specific gravity of the material.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 10 October 2015 09: 33 New
              0
              However, it's cool about pounds and inches.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 10 October 2015 15: 18 New
                0
                however practical
  3. Avenich
    Avenich 9 October 2015 07: 08 New
    +7
    Logical chain. Soil is less durable than oak, oak is less durable than concrete. Conclusion: the most durable steel.
    Silent scene.
    Che, Olezhek, did not find Brinell strength for concrete. ASG and CXC rule. Earlier they used to say: I handed over the compromising information, you can get married. Or maybe you just calculate the strength beam for a start? Or the same rail? The fluidity there, plastic deformation. In short, sit down, Kaptsov "minus".
    1. Santa Fe
      9 October 2015 07: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Avenich
      ASG and CXC rule. Earlier they used to say: I handed over the compromising information, you can get married.

      You yourself know the difference between sopromat for mechanics and construction specialties
      Quote: Avenich
      Che, Olezhek, did not find Brinell strength for concrete.

      depending on the quality of 50-100

      much more interesting with tensile strength / yield strength. while concrete works relatively well in compression, in bending / stretching it is 200 times worse than ordinary structural steel

      "The wheel is round; its area is pi r squared. This is where it knocks" (C)
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 9 October 2015 07: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You yourself know the difference between sopromat for mechanics and construction specialties

        Well, well, well, but from this place in more detail, please.
        1. Santa Fe
          9 October 2015 07: 53 New
          -3
          Quote: Avenich
          Well, well, well, but from this place in more detail, please.

          So you don’t know. In March you will come for a retake
          1. Avenich
            Avenich 9 October 2015 08: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            So you don’t know. In March you will come for a retake

            So would you, to me, wretchedly, even throw a training manual or something, or you’re already preparing a textbook. Again, by March I’ll settle in with the shipbuilders with your standings, they’ll immediately put in big money, otherwise you already got tired of choosing wooden bearings for a penny.
      2. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 9 October 2015 11: 36 New
        +4
        .... You yourself know the difference between sopromat for mechanics and construction specialties ...

        .... Virtually nothing .... The basics are the same .... Building mechanics, yes ... A little different ... But still it all comes down to bending, torsion, shearing .... Yes, and complicated things consist mainly of beams, panels, shells .... Something like this .... :)))))))
        1. Avenich
          Avenich 9 October 2015 12: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          The basics are the same

          Let me correct, dear Lee. The laws are the same. And the assessment of hardness by different methods is just a ball (strip, needle) pressed, the depth and strength are fixed according to the table, the hardness was determined. But after all, a shell is not a ball, and it is far from a screw press that presses it to the material, here other laws work. Why am I ... it’s been written about it a million times. Compare wood and steel in relation to artillery ammunition ... no, well, hold me seven. It’s like they hit a tuzik with a ship’s shell and it was smashed to pieces and from this we concluded we will build armadillos.
        2. Santa Fe
          9 October 2015 20: 46 New
          -7
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          .... Virtually nothing .... The fundamentals are the same .... Structural mechanics, yes ... A little different ... But still it all comes down to bending, torsion, shearing ...

          builders have the main calculation for compression
          there is practically no stretching
          1. Ladoga
            Ladoga 9 October 2015 22: 59 New
            +5
            ,, builders have the main calculation for compression
            there is practically no stretching there,

            This is you, for example, tell the bridge builders. They will appreciate.
          2. Aqela
            Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 14 New
            +2
            Dear SWEET_SIXTEEN, something is not up to par in this discussion. Didn’t sleep enough? no
            I did not expect from you a willingness to drive a blizzard with a smart look. You still declare that geometry for agronomists and civil engineers has significant differences. stop negative
          3. FID
            FID 15 October 2015 18: 34 New
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            builders have the main calculation for compression
            there is practically no stretching


            I apologize, but, since I was TEACHING sopromat ... You are mistaken. Take the calculation of any farm and you will see both STRENGTH and compression. Mechanics, usually farms DO NOT CALCULATE, the maximum is the calculation of frames.
    2. alexej123
      alexej123 9 October 2015 12: 22 New
      0
      Yes, kink, twist, etc. Channel, I-beam, etc.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 20 New
        0
        Unfortunately, something discussion did not ask. They confuse statics with dynamics, they take it as a basis that builders work only with bricks and unreinforced concrete ...
        This is like the recent news that the new building was skewed, but the developer is not to blame.
        I am not directly connected with the engineering and construction specialty, but I remember very well how my friend (studied in the specialty of industrial and civil construction) counted in the course erection of the factory building, taking into account the nature of the underlying soil.
        Is the quality of education so reduced and thickness of mind became so impenetrable ???
    3. alexej123
      alexej123 9 October 2015 12: 22 New
      0
      Yes, kink, twist, etc. Channel, I-beam, etc.
  4. Djusha
    Djusha 9 October 2015 08: 33 New
    +1
    There will be a corresponding goal - there will be a corresponding ammunition, that's all
    1. Santa Fe
      9 October 2015 08: 44 New
      -2
      No, it will not

      Also, as there is no "appropriate ammunition" against tanks
      1. K-50
        K-50 9 October 2015 10: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Also, as there is no "appropriate ammunition" against tanks

        And where did they go? belay
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 24 New
          +1
          I wrote above that "Ostap suffered".
          Well wants SWEET_SIXTEEN cancel the entire range of anti-tank ammunition developed over the past hundred years and that's it ... request lol Soon, apparently, the law of gravity in the Duma will be canceled ... laughing
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 9 October 2015 13: 43 New
        0
        But what about the German bomb of WWII on radio control? she sewed battleships, it’s not bad, what’s worth making a similar rocket?
        1. K-50
          K-50 9 October 2015 18: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: cth; fyn
          But what about the German bomb of WWII on radio control? she sewed battleships, it’s not bad, what’s worth making a similar rocket?

          The Han have anti-ship ballistic missiles of similar action. Why doesn't the author know about this? request
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 27 New
            0
            And exactly the Han people? belay request
            It seems like all sorts of “rank”, “tea”, “sin” (from here in Latin Sinanthropus - a person from there) - descended from the Qin empire? Although, yes, there are very many people living in the Han territory there ... fellow
            The question about ballistic anti-ship missiles is appropriate. good
  5. tasha
    tasha 9 October 2015 08: 44 New
    +2
    It seems to me that I also need to take into account that booking a large object is not a monolithic rectangle, but plates of various shapes attached to the set and interconnected. Thicker armor - more weight - more weight set. You can’t figure it out without an arithmometer.
    Conducted an experiment - hit a sledgehammer on a metal sheet in a frame. The sheet did not break, but the seams around the perimeter of the sheet cracked ....
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 37 New
      +1
      From the point of view of the mass of local couch experts voting for construction and agrotechnical geometry, your information is fundamentally incorrect, as the following parameters are not indicated: 1) the shape and dimensions of the hammer head, 2) the length of the handle material and 3) the reduced thickness of the metal the sheet at the point of impact, taking into account the angle of the force vector, 4) the grade of the metal sheet material and the availability of information about hardening and other hardening methods used (well, cementation ...), 5) there is no scheme for fastening the metal sheet in the test bench .. .
      In short, to find fault to open s.r.ach, and not a discussion on the topic - this is not tricky.
      Personally, I am very saddened by the fact: despite the weakness of the article in terms of argumentation, instead of a clear discussion, I see barking and howls from the side of the “generals”, the desire to quickly move from general to particulars. belay sad
    2. Zulu.S
      Zulu.S 25 January 2016 03: 35 New
      0
      No need to peel a sledgehammer. And it’s hard and useless. To hit the helmet, the ancestors successfully used klevets or chasing. more effective
  6. Delta
    Delta 9 October 2015 08: 56 New
    +5
    give armored sailboats! so much so that the sails were armored ...
    1. Delta
      Delta 9 October 2015 10: 09 New
      +1
      Kaptsov’s adherents lack a sense of humor laughing
    2. spech
      spech 10 October 2015 09: 23 New
      +2
      armored sails were ...

      Cumulative Knippels wassat
    3. Aqela
      Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 39 New
      0
      By the way, making up a sail from Kevlar is not a tricky business. Another thing is that it is not advisable: expensive and the material, if sclerosis does not change me, is afraid of contacts with all kinds of different fluids. no
      1. Locksmith
        Locksmith 8 February 2016 08: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Aqela
        and the material, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, is afraid of contact with all sorts of different fluids

        This is actually a distant relative of nylon, he is not afraid of anything. wink
  7. Manul
    Manul 9 October 2015 09: 38 New
    +1
    It is not clear how concrete bombs are tied to breaking through armor. For concrete one thing, for armor another. But in general, the message is clear as always. All the same, I join the question of how much it will weigh in grams. As I understand it, today it is not the armor belt that is being discussed, but the booking of the compartments. Those who know the size of the compartments in question can roughly estimate the discussed booking area (taking into account possible adjacent compartments)? And then an elementary calculation, and we get the figure we are interested in. There is nothing to argue about, pure curiosity.
  8. K-50
    K-50 9 October 2015 10: 07 New
    +3
    Despite the broken concrete and the destroyed caponiers, the author of this article is convinced that all existing rocket models (like any possible “armor-piercing” variants based on them) are not able to penetrate through an array of armored steel with any efficiency.

    I do not believe my eyes! belay laughing
    Hard case! laughing
  9. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 October 2015 10: 13 New
    +14
    Eh, Kaptsov, Kaptsov ... request Suppose yours, as it were, to put it mildly ... uh ... perseverance in proving the superiority of armor over a shell was successful ... Lets say! ... Let's say that even within the framework of this article this PRK will not be able to penetrate 200 mm of ship’s armor. So what??? What, Oleg ??? All countries of the world (or how many do you think are there, 16-18?) Will rush to build modern battleships ??? or protected arsenal ships ?? (Hello to the last picture hi ) That, in addition to the modern analogue of armor - the ship’s air defense systems - another 2000 tons of steel need to be added in order to "ensure combat stability in battle." In this case, the increase in the cost of the ship, the state of the economy of the state, able to build such vessels do not take into account. Or do you want to say that any country will refuse to build 2 frigates without reservation in return for one money, in exchange for one but with reservation. so that later he gathers dust at the pier in fear of losing an expensive toy? And how many times was it proposed to contact the KB for clarification? But in response, stubborn evidence of the inability of modern RCC to penetrate adequate armor ...
    Instead of looking at the problem of the lack of CAPITAL booking of ships in all respects, from all sides, an old song begins with a game of terms and Sopromat interweaving ... How much can you say that modern ships have a completely different redistribution of volumes and loads, for something completely different weapons with other characteristics! And they differ from the battleships and cruisers of the mid XX century! And any sobering, adequate shipbuilder will say that today nobody will put capital armor to increase combat stability, not only for economic reasons, but also from the point of view of ordinary logic! Because weapons today are very smart compared to ordinary "dumb" shells! What for those pair of capital-protected arsenal ships (because no one will build such expensive toys in dozens - they won’t pull it) there is always a submarine with a smart torpedo that will not jump out of the water to hit the belt and not penetrate it, but will hit from below. What will you book the bottom? Or like the Chinese. he will create a hypersonic missile with a smart onboard brain that will sink at such a speed that no armor will save! Oleg, you need to consider ALL options, then you will understand that there will be no return to your favorite battleships and cruisers in the classic layout. And how many times I’ll remind you (the language already hurts) that the reservation is present on today's ships in that quantity and in the quality, as far as it is justified by the design, displacement, cost of each particular ship! Only for some reason everything is numb to you lol
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 9 October 2015 10: 33 New
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Only for some reason everything is numb to you

      Nah. Andrey, well, it’s impossible, it’s not tolerant! .... and have a drink ... sorry! and chat? A ignoramus to shock with clever words? This is cool !!!
      1. Delta
        Delta 9 October 2015 10: 38 New
        +4
        Quote: Serg65
        and chat? A ignoramus to shock with clever words?


        You forgot about the beautiful photos. True, often having nothing to do with the article .... but then garbage. The main thing is that it was possible to .. child)))
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 9 October 2015 10: 47 New
          +4
          Quote: Delta
          You forgot about the beautiful photos. True, often having nothing to do with the article .... but then garbage. The main thing is that it was possible to .. child)))

          Well, yes, you can’t argue with the pictures ... Powell was also a coward in his day ... wink
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 44 New
            +1
            But agree that the ship’s photo is more beautiful than a test tube with chalk? good
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 50 New
              0
              dialogue of two cats after breakfast, lunch, dinner is something.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 9 October 2015 10: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Serg65
        .and have a drink ... sorry! and chat? A ignoramus to shock with clever words? This is cool !!!

        Yeah ... And at the same time neighing. But only a transfusion from empty to empty can make me laugh, but the ignoramuses will take such a situation as proof, almost the ultimate truth! stop No, if Kaptsov had a detailed report, with justification and taking into account ALL realities, then it would be possible to have a drink ... sorry, to argue. But I don’t see anything like that. It begins with a comparison of ships of different eras on a single point and an attempt to prove the inferiority of the modern in comparison with the past ... Convincing, with a substitution of concepts negative
        And so, if only a drink ... wink drinks
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 9 October 2015 11: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          There is no Kaptsov’s detailed report, with justification and taking into account ALL realities

          what Andrew, this is something from the realm of fiction !!!!! Populism and a detailed report are incompatible things. bully drinks
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 9 October 2015 11: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            ! Populism and a detailed report are incompatible things.

            Why so? what If we take a kind of populist review (in this case, we take the adequacy of the availability of armor on the ships in the form that this author is counting on, proving this with his arguments), dilute it with the opinions of not only the author, but also competent comrades (which I have repeatedly pointed out ), take into account not only the penetration of modern missiles, but many other characteristics (the ability to change the characteristics of missiles by changing the ammunition, falling not only into the armor on the waterline), take into account the redistribution of the weight of the forecast ship and the associated economic calculations (which again can to prove to competent people from the KB that it’s simply ignored) ... Then you get a detailed report. What can I say ... Armor is still stupidly stronger than a rocket lol If you do not take into account the factors that impede this drinks
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 9 October 2015 17: 33 New
              +2
              Quote: Rurikovich
              dilute it with the views of not only the author, but also competent comrades

              Quote: Rurikovich
              , take into account not only the penetration of modern missiles, but many other characteristics

              Quote: Rurikovich
              take into account the redistribution of the weight of the forecasted ship and the accompanying economic calculations (which once again competent people from the design bureau can prove that it’s simply ignored

              what Andrei, have you tried yourself in politics ??? good From the series ... at a pressure of 0,5 pascal per square inch, the seams of your tile should not exceed 12% of the thermal expansion of your wall at the average annual temperatures in your region over an 10 summer period! wassat drinks
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 9 October 2015 17: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                Andrei, have you tried yourself in politics ???

                good drinks Advised, did not agree. Conscience does not allow wink
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 9 October 2015 17: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  Advised, did not agree. Conscience does not allow

                  recourse It's a pity! With your building a detailed dialogue, you would make a good deputy bully
              2. Aqela
                Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 49 New
                0
                By the way! Well-constructed phrase ... good
                This is how I somehow betrayed: it is impossible to exclude the possibility of the presence of a given fact under the circumstances in the forecast period of time ...
                And in everyday life: maybe.
                The whole joke of the situation is that in 80% of the people, by the second or third paragraph, the thread of the story is lost and then you can hang noodles on the ears on an industrial scale ... fellow
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 9 October 2015 11: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Unconvincing, with the substitution of concepts

          All this works against compact targets, whose booking does not exceed several cubic meters. meters But will it not be that all existing means will be powerless when meeting with a large highly protected object?

          In the article, the author suggests finding a way to break through the armor of the ship, approached this somewhat floridly.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 October 2015 13: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Or like the Chinese. will create a hypersonic missile with a smart onboard brain, which will descend from above at such a speed that no armor will save!

      Let's be simpler: there is an old proven solution - an anti-ship ballistic missile, the heiress of the R-27K. smile
  10. pimen
    pimen 9 October 2015 10: 17 New
    0
    perforated armor - not very better pyramidal outer layer under the "critical" caliber
  11. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 October 2015 10: 25 New
    +6
    I will add. The forum involves the exchange of opinions. My personal opinion is that I put a fat, fatty minus for revealing the topic for the same sufferers and nostalgic for the ships of a bygone era. But adequate and thinking people would have awarded you the Shnobel Prize for narrowly targeted evidence of the need to find excess weight on modern ships and the economic justification for this, which is simply not available. For modern designers and builders are not stupid compared to those who built classic battleships and cruisers wink
    Nothing personal. Specifically, without taking into account other introductory and both military and political with economic. hi
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 October 2015 21: 06 New
      0
      There are both stupid and usually incorrectly taught. There are really ...
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 52 New
        +1
        Id.iot.ov with diplomas, unfortunately, not so little sad
  12. Sochi
    Sochi 9 October 2015 11: 16 New
    +1
    I am not special in this area. But I think that the penetration depends on the speed, mass, material and cross section of the projectile, the smaller the area where the projectile hits the armor, the higher the penetration. I read somewhere that in the thirties they tested ultra-high-speed rifle bullets, so beyond a limit of about 1800 m / s, when such an armor-piercing bullet hits, it behaves like glass ... only after several shots, the weapon became unusable. This is about armor penetration.
    Regarding the reservation of ships. The era of armadillos has long passed ... Instead of the weight of armored plates it is better to carry a supply of fuel, ammunition or additional buoyancy ...
  13. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 9 October 2015 11: 34 New
    +4
    something this cycle began to bore ...........
  14. shorner
    shorner 9 October 2015 12: 25 New
    +1
    The author, at what point in time the HE-penetrating warhead x-29 became an armor-piercing weapon ??? This rocket is a tool for other purposes!
    what are you writing about?
    why litter your brains?
    Regards Shorner.
    1. Zulu.S
      Zulu.S 25 January 2016 03: 59 New
      0
      Data from the manufacturer’s website:
      Rocket X-29TE, X-29L
      Air-to-surface aircraft missiles X-29TE, X-29L
      Air-to-surface missiles X-29TE, X-29L are designed to destroy visually visible ground-level and surface targets (large railway and road bridges, industrial buildings, concrete runways, reinforced concrete aircraft shelters, surface ships with a displacement of up to 10000 t).
      Missiles are designed to arm fighter aircraft and attack aircraft.
      The guidance system is passive television (X-29TE), semi-active on the reflected laser spot of illumination (X-29L).
      Propulsion - single-mode solid propellant rocket engine.
      An explosive device is a contact sensor of a target.
      The warhead is a high explosive type.
      Major TTX
      X-29TE
      X-29L
      Launch Range:

      maximum, km
      20-30
      10
      minimum, km
      3
      3
      Launch weight, kg
      690
      660
      Warhead weight, kg
      320
      Overall dimensions, m

      length
      3,9
      diameter
      0,4
      wingspan
      1,1
  15. abc_alex
    abc_alex 9 October 2015 12: 46 New
    +5
    And I'm interested :)
    No really. Electronics is becoming faster and more compact, headlamps and AFARs have greatly changed the appearance of ship’s antenna posts, and deck-based UAVs can solve the problem of failure of ship’s antennas.
    RCC interception is possible now. And, I think, the process will move on.
    It is impossible to accelerate RCC indefinitely, hypersonic already makes the missile uncontrollable, and translates its interception into the plane of extensive buildup of calculator power.

    Will the development of the navy go somewhere else? Why not towards armored ships? Critics of this idea forget that the author does not propose making an armored "iron" for ramming and canceling air defense. The author proposes to supplement the defensive arsenal of ships with proven means of passive protection. Yes, new projects will have to be done, and it is possible to change the concept of combat again. In the final analysis, now conventional barrel artillery of "ship" calibers can become more effective, not where. There are high-speed computers, there are compact flight correction systems, bottom gas generators for shells. And Arly Burke will be enough for a couple of large-caliber shells, you just need to approach the distance of the shot :)
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 October 2015 21: 09 New
      0
      She becomes hypervzukova at the terminal site before breaking through the armor - in fact they shoot at the armor (and even worse) at point-blank range. And by the way, he is correctly oriented at the same time.
      The interception complex is interfered with.
  16. Mike_v
    Mike_v 9 October 2015 13: 03 New
    +6
    In my opinion, the article can definitely be put a minus. These are purely theoretical considerations about what can and cannot be. Even by looking at Vika, you can see that X 29 is not intended to destroy ships of large displacement. Its main purpose is the destruction of reinforced concrete bunkers and other shelters. The rocket copes well with this. This is clearly seen in Syria today. There is a special class of RCC. X 29 do not belong to them. This is one side. Second: where did you see NATO armored ships? Tell me who knows. I personally can not answer this question. Let's remember the story. 82 year war in the South. The Atlantic. The latest (at that time of course) URO destroyer Sheffield was opened like a tin can by an unexploded AX. There are other examples. A later example. Frigate Stark (type O.H. Perry) - sunk in the Persian Gulf (again by Exx) launched from an Iraqi plane. Well there are no armored ships in NATO. Therefore, if you look practically, and not theoretically reason, then X29 is a very dangerous thing for any NATO ship. Another moment. In the late 80s I had to participate in writing programs (for ZX Spektrum, maybe someone remembers such a PC). One of those prg compared the force of the impact of the PRK on board the ship with the impact force of the 15 inch shell of the Bismarck battleship. I emphasize - only the power of the blow. The penetrating effect of warheads was not considered. So here are some of the results of those "studies." For the X-31a. This rocket has a maximum speed of M 3,1 i.e. approximately 1000 - 800 m / s depending on height. The impact force of this missile turned out to be 95 - 97% of the impact force of an armor-piercing shell of a battleship. Well, now imagine the result of getting this rocket in a tin can of NATO? And what if a special anti-ship missile with warhead 450 kg?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 9 October 2015 14: 47 New
      +2
      The whole point of Oleg Kaptsov's articles implies a disagreement with the fact that multi-ton vessels DO NOT HAVE AN ARMOR !!! That’s the catch. And all his assumptions come down to putting a reservation on the ship, then ordinary modern anti-ship missiles will not break it and he will not “drown”. And he doesn’t understand why, with an equal displacement of the cruiser, 2 MVs have armor, and modern counterparts have no displacement! Because of this, the whole fuss fired! hi
      1. Zulu.S
        Zulu.S 25 January 2016 04: 09 New
        0
        The whole point of modern defense-defeat technologies has long moved away from the confrontation of armor-shell (including missile, etc.)
  17. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 October 2015 13: 25 New
    +2
    1. Take the X-29.
    2. Change the penetrating warhead to the “turned" armor-piercing shell.
    3. We work on the armored deck.
    4. ...
    5. Profit!

    As a warhead - an armor-piercing projectile of caliber 305-356 mm, with a lightweight hull in the aft. Taking into account the missile’s speed at the target of the order of 700 m / s, the armor penetration of this warhead will be equivalent to the armor penetration of a conventional BBS of the same caliber at a distance of 2-4 km.
    Relief is possible due to the fact that the strength / thickness of the stern of the classic projectile is designed for pressure in the barrel and the loads that arise when firing - and the warhead will not have them. The Japanese in 1941, when remaking 16.1 "shells into bombs, managed to lighten them up to 800 kg.
  18. Termit1309
    Termit1309 9 October 2015 14: 11 New
    +4
    It makes no sense to look for modern ammunition capable of guaranteed to drown the battleship. There are no battleships - there is no ammunition. For what for they are needed. There will be battleships or armadillos - there will be ammunition. Immediately they will not have time to build a battleship. And arguing on this topic is lazy and stupid. And as for the opuses uv. Kaptsova, recently caught himself on the fact that without reading the article I hasten to first find out the name of the author. Pity us please take a creative break.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 9 October 2015 14: 41 New
      +3
      No, why ... let him write historical essays - he succeeds ... Syllable, style ... Battle scenes ... I read with pleasure. Good fiction.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 9 October 2015 21: 11 New
        0
        Well, Clancy also wrote well ...
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 October 2015 21: 12 New
      0
      Yes, this one was still nothing, but with such people it’s better to go to the forum ... although it looks good here (but the diameter is mixed up with the length of the ammunition).
    3. Aqela
      Aqela 15 October 2015 07: 58 New
      +1
      Right! I would like to contact the authors of the site so that the author’s name is not put at the end of the article, but at the beginning, so that you could immediately take into account: the storyteller will be broadcasting or a thoughtful person ...
  19. tasha
    tasha 9 October 2015 14: 19 New
    +5
    Examples from tank building are closer to me.
    After the Spanish events, the feverish design of tanks with anti-shell armor began. "Because it’s a shame, comrades, that any shell pierces the armor of our tanks." I can’t vouch for accuracy, but somehow one of the tankers put it this way, encountering high-speed 37-mm anti-tank guns in battle (and BT-shki’s forehead had 15mm ... And the order to attack ... That's it ... This is courage ...).
    It ended with 1000mm with a hook from modern tanks. The thickness of the armor grew, and the caliber of anti-tank guns grew. Shells with a uranium core appeared, and composite armor appeared. For what reason did tanks with armor thickness, for example, 2000mm, not appear? The modern technological level allows the engine of the right power to pick up is not a problem, what's the matter? What about the Strugatsky? "And the MAMONT tank rushed into the square?"
    Obviously, there are restrictions that you can’t argue against? And the designers went the other way, today it is armor + KAZ.

    The position of the author, who is perplexed (Oleg, are you perplexed?), Is clear that modern warships worth a thuy heck of okhrenilliard can be put out of action by a missile boom. That is why shipbuilding minds do not sleep at night, trying to find a compromise between Wishlist and opportunities. You can build a modern super-duper battleship, there are no problems. So what? Built by the Germans Mouse (two) Did he bring them much benefit?
    1. Urfin
      Urfin 9 October 2015 14: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: tasha
      For what reason did tanks with armor thickness, for example, 2000mm, not appear?

      1) transportation problems. even Germans and French are forced to build tanks with an eye on roads and bridges. Not to mention us and the Americans, whose transportation of the tank over long distances is a fundamental problem.
      2) 10 t-34s performed much more combat missions than 2 tigers. even taking into account that they had to meet with tigers, which is not equal to 100% probability. Same with MBT with 2000mm armor and regular MBT.
      maybe someone will correct me or supplement me.
      1. tasha
        tasha 9 October 2015 14: 47 New
        +3
        "And our friend Watson was the first to explode in this mine" ...

        I, dear Urfin, understand why they did not build tanks with armor 2000mm. Does respected O. Kaptsov understand this? You have a plus from me ... :)
        1. Urfin
          Urfin 9 October 2015 15: 03 New
          0
          Thank you)) hi
      2. Zulu.S
        Zulu.S 25 January 2016 04: 20 New
        0
        Already in the late 50s of the last century, tank builders abandoned heavy tanks. Reasons - not every bridge can withstand, patency tends to 0, etc. How much will a tank with 2000 armor weigh?
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 9 October 2015 14: 35 New
    +7
    But I know that the best armor-piercing ammunition will come from our Oleg Kaptsov ... For its stubbornness and persistence, as they say, "inspires" ...

    And he doesn’t care about the fact that, for a long time, the equivalents of armor penetration of armor and concrete were compared experimentally (up to the fact that tanks were poured from concrete) and the fact that today the issue of breaking through armor is not necessarily stupid perforation by blanks due to kinetic energy .. . etc. etc.
    And how many times they "repeated the world" ... But ...

    so I propose that armor penetration is now measured in Kaptsov’s bully
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 October 2015 15: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      And he didn’t care about the fact that in general, the equivalents of armor penetration of armor and concrete were experimentally compared for a long time (to the point that tanks were poured from concrete)

      And they made concrete shielding of tanks:
    2. Zulu.S
      Zulu.S 25 January 2016 04: 25 New
      0
      About ships made of concrete (and even from sawdust-ice mixture) I heard. About concrete tanks?
  21. Selevc
    Selevc 9 October 2015 14: 48 New
    +1
    In my opinion, Oleg missed two more very important aspects of booking warships: 1st is the mass of armor. The vessel must have positive buoyancy in order to actually sail and not sink ... The huge armored monster battleships of the first half of the 20th century, in fact, were built so huge mainly to ensure the vessel positive buoyancy ... Therefore, for example, small vessels are simply impossible to book in excess of a certain measure because they simply go to the bottom !!! And in order to book a medium-sized vessel you will have to increase its size !!! And so on ... And by the way, the mass of a floating vessel also directly affects the change in its speed in water, that is, on maneuverability !!!
    The 2nd aspect is the use of RCC in hypersound. Probably very, very few people know the test results of such missiles !!! When such a missile hits the ship’s hull, a tremendous amount of kinetic energy is released ... Where will it go? How will the armored plates behave in this case? How will ship electronics behave in this case? I think that the armored target ship may not be penetrated, but it will be 100% disabled and will not be able to continue to function fully - which is actually what the attacker needs ...
    And at the end, some statistics: About 100 tons of large vessels sink every year in the world simply because of bad weather conditions !!! And this despite all the modern gadgets: GPS navigation, modern communications, bulkheads, other electronic equipment, online weather forecasts, etc. The sea is very insidious and volatile element !!! And warships need not only to go on a combat campaign (regardless of weather conditions) and take part in the battle and then still return to the port (possibly damaged). Will the increase in mass and, as a consequence, the size of the vessel affect its survivability? I think that will affect but negatively !!!
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 9 October 2015 15: 07 New
      +1
      The problem is not the weight of the armor. You can build a vessel with such a thickness of armor that modern anti-ship missiles will not break it (according to Kaptsov). But this creation will have such a displacement and such a cost that with this money and from this metal it will be possible to build a fleet for the whole country in the amount of a couple of tens of units. and while such a creation is still under construction, the most nimble and zealous gunsmiths will come up with more perverse means to send this creation to Neptune. Yes, and most likely it will be gathering dust at the pier, because truly, even the richest country will not decide to lose the "golden" vessel wink For the most-most always has its very-most lol
      Everything is possible in today's world. it’s just that everything should be reasoned, profitable according to the price-effectiveness criteria and fully respond to those functions for which it is intended. hi
      1. Logos
        Logos 6 November 2015 03: 54 New
        0
        Yes, and most likely it will be gathering dust at the pier, because truly, even the richest country will not decide to lose the "golden" vessel

        It looks like the story with Tirpitz - it was so expensive that any proposal to drive it out of the port for a military operation caused fierce debate in naval headquarters, afraid to lose such an expensive "toy"
    2. Mike_v
      Mike_v 9 October 2015 15: 25 New
      +1
      In the commentary above, I gave an example with the force of impact of the X-31a rocket into the side with an angle of +/- 10 degrees from the vertical, i.e. the impact is commensurate with the impact force of a 15 inch shell of a battleship. For X-35 (subsonic), to the surprise, 55-60% was obtained. So here, in my opinion, we can say that the ship (class destroyer and frigate) will definitely be disabled. I’ll add one more moment when I was still a cadet, the teacher gave an example with the old “Comet” used from the Tu-4, and so it broke a target into 2 parts during tests (a cruiser of the tsar’s construction with Putilov’s armor, i.e. which could withstand the impact of several shells 100 mm). What will happen to a modern non-armored ship - I think it's not worth guessing.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 9 October 2015 15: 56 New
        +2
        This cruiser was the "Red Caucasus". And he withstood the hit of several "Comets", though without a warhead. We decided to test it with a battle, as a result of which it broke on the floors and sank.
        The question simply arises: what should be the thickness of the armor in order to withstand the impact force of the same X-31? Therefore, the second question arises - if the thickness of the armor is known, then how much armor is needed to (according to Kaptsov) cover at least the waterline of the side of the ship. About add-ons, all kinds of posts there, I’m still silent about radars. Just the third question. Will the cost of such a ship be comparable to its value? Will he be able to recoup the weight of the metal, which will be incorporated into it by its efficiency? A lot of questions wink
        So it may be better to make sure that the rocket does not reach the ship than to inject resources into it based on some assumptions.
        Personally, my opinion hi
    3. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 20 October 2015 11: 33 New
      +2
      In Vietnam, there was a successful launch and hit the battleship "New Jersey" with two products of the S-75 complex. Add-ons were broken, but as a participant in the events told me, the heads themselves did not seem to explode, but even the spilled and burning fuel was enough for the battleship to go into repair. Details: he said that the warhead of those missiles was 180 kg in weight, although it is indicated everywhere that 200 kg, and he also said that the warheads did not explode due to the modification of the missiles, there was something related to the peculiarity of the fuses, they did not observe outbreaks, which are usually were from a warhead explosion. And most importantly, they had to quickly "roll up", because the "otvetka" began.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 October 2015 04: 57 New
        0
        and there might still be an oxidizing agent ... lol
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. brn521
    brn521 9 October 2015 15: 18 New
    +1
    Obviously, Italians knew something. That the surface explosion near the armored belt is ineffective and will not cause the ship any noticeable harm.

    Harm from 600 kg will be very noticeable. The armored belt and part of the set in the area of ​​the explosion will definitely be destroyed. But the undermining of such a charge at a depth where there is no longer any armored belt, and even at a certain distance from the side, will cause much greater damage that the ship definitely will not survive.
    High-precision air-to-surface missiles of the X-29 type are the most common ammunition for this purpose, in service with the domestic Air Force. The missile is equipped with a high explosive penetration warhead 9B63MN with a mass of 317 kg containing 116 kg of explosive.

    In such a scenario (a battleship with a citadel mounted), it is better to first go through it with pure land mines in order to hit add-ons, masts and auxiliary equipment. The body kit became more important than the filling even when WWII did not end. And this kit, in turn, required a solid mast to reduce vibration. I don’t know what kind of vibration there was on ships, I didn’t see it. But it seems that because of her, the masts eventually turned into almost superstructures. Type due to this vibration, the effectiveness of radars is significantly reduced, especially at full speed. However, the state of modern electronics is such that perhaps the ship will still be fully operational, relying on the surveillance and target designation system of other ships, if we are dealing with a flotilla.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 October 2015 16: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: brn521
      In such a layout (a battleship with a citadel mounted), it is better to first go through it with pure land mines in order to hit add-ons, masts and auxiliary equipment

      Even better - fragmentation with remote detonation and GGE. Walk sandpaper on antennas, optics and external equipment.
      Or even fill up with submunitions from a cluster warhead.
      Quote: brn521
      The body kit became more important than the filling even when WWII did not end. And this kit, in turn, required a solid mast to reduce vibration.

      Before. The struggle to increase the effective firing range began even before the WWII. And the effective firing range is directly related to the range of detection and measurement of the target’s motion parameters - so that the SUAO receives the target data in time and gives out the processed data for the salvo to its guns. Therefore, it was necessary to raise the sights and rangefinders higher and higher - in order to increase the range of the visible horizon. And the rangefinder is a heavy and fragile thing, and measuring distance with it is not so simple. Vibration of the rangefinder - a ship "jumping" in the field of view - a range error when combining or focusing. Plus, vibration leads to a quick misalignment of precise mechanics - and this again is a mistake. Therefore, the mast had to only be strengthened, but also unfastened to reduce these very vibrations.
      And from a multi-legged mast with many sites and Mars to a tower-like superstructure - one step. It is enough instead of installing between the "legs" of the mast many mars and platforms with separate cuttings and rooms, just close the contour of the mast on the racks with a single skin, thus forming a superstructure.

      Regarding the effect of vibrations on the SUAO, the clinical case was on the diesel Kanzmarine Panzerschiffe:
      But if noise can be attributed to “everyday” shortcomings, then significant vibration, caused, in particular, by lightweight beds and engine mounts, negatively affected combat qualities - the exact devices of fire control and communication systems failed from shaking. Although during the operation most of the “inconveniences” were to some extent eliminated or mitigated, accurate firing at full speed remained a difficult task.
  24. pimen
    pimen 9 October 2015 19: 32 New
    0
    no, well, that’s all pounced on the guy?
    Of course, I am an amateur, always and in everything; but here’s how, say, parallel reality might look like. Still, marine, unlike land, have a substantial supply of weight and volume ...
    Armor:
    If you take in your hand a box of sharpened pencils, from the leads "closed" by an external centimeter board, with a depth (pyramids) of one and a half meters, turning practically into one whole in a closed lower quarter, on a half-meter "from aluminum armor" base, squares ( meter per meter), lowered from the top along the grooves welded to it. Such armor, with its two meters across, could well weigh like a “correct” half-meter, (plus some intrinsic buoyancy). The principle of its work is that the blank either stupidly overcomes all two meters of armor, or it is jammed with barrels between the pyramids preventing it from piercing the base.
    Next:
    If we take a 150-meter vessel as a unit, then it could well be replaced by a 50-meter catamaran,
    The inner sides of which are not required to be booked (although there may also be options here).
    In my opinion, this is, at least, not a toothless front, and Oleg may have other arguments.
    However, I also agree that if active means of self-defense guarantee at least 70 percent of interceptions, then from a certain number of ships and certain industry capacities to make up for losses, this problem is not relevant.
  25. Kvazar
    Kvazar 9 October 2015 22: 33 New
    +4
    Write pleasing posts, I myself also love battleships. But it's time to change the subject and put an end to it already. I will be brief. A fleet is needed to project power. Previously, these were gunboats, then battleships, then battleships, now aircraft carriers and missile ships. By the beginning of World War II, battleships in technology had become so complex that they could be built in total .... SIX countries (the USSR never completed), when 22 countries were built as armadillos. We will be realistic now (2015) in the world of only TWO! countries that have technology full components. The ship at the moment is only a carrier platform and that’s all !. Yes, it’s complicated and expensive (all of a sudden only a shave, France, the USA and Russia can build a complete aircraft carrier). And now we look at what is included at a vskidka in a modern sea-based platform. Carable building, Air defense missile systems, missile force projection systems (ASR and RVZ), PLO, helicopter structure, art building, aircraft building, radars, torpedo building, electronic warfare, satellite coordinate grouping, satellite, aviation, marine, electronic reconnaissance, satellite guidance grouping rockets, satellite communication grouping, satellite tracking grouping. Rocket science. And all this is necessary so that ONE ship ala Peter the Great was not a set of useless iron. The USA and Russia can afford the full component. All other countries are countries of the second and third world that do not have this, and they have to choose between two countries who should lick their ass for using systems (and even then not everyone allows it). Now we pass directly to the topic of discussion. Do I need to book a ship? Yes need. At what displacement is it effective at the moment? 25000+ tons (in reality it will be effective on ships of 50k and above, normally it can be implemented only at 100 + tons). How much does a modern reservation cost? It costs a damn cloud of money. Yes, the effectiveness of armor has become three times higher than Krupp armor at the moment, so the price is one hundred times higher. The price per ton of armor per circle is already approaching two lamas of rubles per ton, in the west to six million rubles per ton per circle. Now we wonder who has all the components, and so much dough? All ships are armored with Kevlar and plastic against splinters and steel where they can but they are small ships. TWO countries can build warships in 50-100K tons. One does not have a goal of having such platforms and money (Russia), the second having everything suddenly does not have the same money .... and this country of the USA, they all loot spend aircraft carriers projecting forces on a more flexible instrument and suddenly armor them. Since the if you have the choice to build an Aircraft carrier with an av group for 30 lard (10 aircraft carrier, 10 air group, 10 cover ships and nuclear submarines) with a buche, or a missile battleship of comparable displacement (which costs 20 itself + 10 groups) also worth 30 lard bache you will build an aircraft carrier. Just for two reasons. More flexible tool. And most importantly it is cheaper. A four-hour flight costs 80k bachels and delivery of 8 tons of bombs to the Papuans. The cost of one rocket is 2 million bachels and delivery is 450 kg. Therefore, we will not see heavy boarded ships. And not because it is not profitable for the ship. But because there is no one to build.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 October 2015 05: 46 New
      -3
      Quote: Kvazar
      Write pleasing posts, I myself also love battleships. But it's time to change the subject and put an end to it already.

      Most likely one more will be

      about the aspect of value

      and yes, battleships have nothing to do with it. Speech about constructive protection for modern ships 10-20 CT
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 10 October 2015 19: 27 New
        0
        So structural put an average of 5 to 10% of the water capacity of a modern ship is structural protection, mainly aluminum-Kevlar-plastic. It’s not convenient to search on a tablet for a modern 8k ton destroyer carries 450 tons of structural booking. Is it a lot or a little? It’s hard to push more expensive there. The effectiveness of Kevlar is higher after breaking through the fragments, and against the absorption of the blast wave and the fragments than steel, aluminum alloys have the same alloys as plastics. That is, modern constructive protection of modern ships meets its purpose (not always but answers) An explosion of 450 kg must withstand. The same Deutschland (12kt from 250kg bombs almost drowned nafig) Battleships have to do with it. Because in fact, if there were loot from countries and there was no mass distribution of MIS, and air defense did not lag behind the means of attack for 20 years, they would have sailed. But when there is a choice to book One missile battleship or build 2300 armata tanks, they will choose the second option)
        1. Santa Fe
          10 October 2015 21: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Kvazar
          It’s not convenient to look for a modern destroyer on 8k tons on a tablet that carries 450 tons of structural reservations. Is it a lot or a little?

          Can not be

          "structural" is a vague thing
          a lot or a little - Cole proved

          Quote: Kvazar
          One missile battleship or build 2300 armata tanks will choose the second option)

          forget about battleships
  26. Operator
    Operator 9 October 2015 22: 39 New
    +2
    The combat use of Caliber cruise missiles in Syria finally turned the idea of ​​booking ships into a spherical horse in a vacuum laughing

    Performance characteristics of the 3M-54E missile with a penetrating high-explosive warhead:
    diameter 533 mm
    length 8220 mm
    weight 2300 kg
    warhead weight 450 kg
    speed
    - Marching 0,8 M (274 m / s)
    - finish 2,9 M (994 m / s)

    High-explosive penetrating warhead
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 9 October 2015 23: 57 New
      0
      Please do not post any garbage. Penetrating warheads need to break through 20mm const. steel sides and produce subra in the inside of the box. In the event of a collision with a small-thickness armored side, it will work at the side. This warhead is perfect for other ships. The problem with reservation is that for ships less than 15k tons it is useless, and they make it shatterproof.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Operator
        Operator 10 October 2015 01: 48 New
        0
        The small thickness of the armored side - how many millimeters?
  27. Operator
    Operator 10 October 2015 02: 24 New
    0
    German-Swedish cruise missile Taurus Kepd 350 with cumulative pre-charge and high-explosive penetrating high-explosive warhead
    1. Santa Fe
      10 October 2015 05: 44 New
      -2
      Quote: Operator
      high explosive penetrating warhead

      Contains only 50 kg of explosives

      the ship cannot be put out of action like that. Yes, even if inside the 20 mm bulkhead system
      Quote: Operator
      Taurus Kepd 350 with cumulative precharge

      Again, this is a concrete slayer
      but how to behave when meeting with a heavy-duty barrier?
      1. Operator
        Operator 10 October 2015 09: 30 New
        0
        The amount of explosives in a penetrating warhead is quite enough to crush a solid case into fragments.
        For a tandem warhead with a precharge, the material of the barrier — concrete or steel — does not play a role, only the penetration depth depends on it — eight or four times, respectively, with respect to the caliber.

        An explosive in a penetrating warhead redirects the scatter vector of metal fragments to the sides of the warhead’s motion vector (“herringbone”). The flight velocity of the fragments is the sum of the warhead velocity (~ 1000 m / s) and the detonation velocity of the explosive (~ 8000 m / s). The mass of one fragment depends on a given method of crushing a strong warhead case and is clearly sufficient to break through a steel bulkhead with a thickness of 20 mm.

        For penetrating warhead type caliber warheads (diameter ~ 533 mm), armor penetration can be evaluated in 100-150 mm homogeneous steel.
        For a tandem warhead (a caliber cumulative precharge with a diameter of 533 mm and a sub-caliber high-explosive penetrating part with a diameter of 100 mm), armor piercing will reach 2000 mm of homogeneous steel.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 10 October 2015 22: 25 New
          0
          Already discussed. If we isolate ourselves from the price, on a missile battleship of 120-140k tons I can level the charges due to dynamic protection, a semi-passive type, it’s possible just dynamic, but there will be a lot of problems with it on the ship. The main means of defeat will be stuck in combined armor. Or the number of explosives should be reduced to 5-6 kg and the flight speed and the mass of the warhead should be increased (rocket monst from 7 tons). 1000 meters per second is not clear from where you gave birth to be honest. The flight speed of this rocket .... from 0,6 to 0,95 M. That is, from 200 to 300 meters per second. You made a mistake with kin energy at least FIVE times. Regarding homogenization. If modern armor has become five times superior to it .... Even if you take a 2000mm armor, penetration is suddenly small (if granite strikes 12 meters with an impact core) For combined reservations, with a cover from dz from the first charge, and dynamic protection against Kumu who broke through the armor five meters from the residual jet niochem. Again we come to a reduction in count, BB to 3%. And this is much better than 450kg of explosives. The problem is that this missile is made against modern ships that have anti-fragmentation combined armor with Kevlar and plastics. Well, it’s not possible to realize a normal reservation on a small displacement, just don’t rest. And so for a given booking mass go on armor alm alloys, Kevlar and plastic. Well, 8-12k ships are not intended to hold a 450kg explosive bomb (more precisely, they are kept at the expense of booking with modern materials, and this is not always the case). Now other realities when a missile boat has a one-minute salvo comparable to a successful salvo of a battleship of the Second World War. This is not the problem of shell-armor. Here the problem of money is in Russia and the USA. Others simply do not have the entire technology cycle. Because a ship since the Second World War has long been not a combat unit, but only a weapon carrier for which which in the system takes well if ten percent.
          1. Operator
            Operator 11 October 2015 00: 56 New
            0
            Against the battleship with a displacement of 150000 tons, there are "vigorous loaves" in the assortment, starting with a tactical nuclear charge of 1500 tons of TNT equivalent in the form factor of the 155-mm projectile weighing 40 kg. As carriers can be used any sea, air and ground-based missiles.

            Speaking of a “monster” (cruise missile with a launch weight of 7 tons), you forgot about the existence of Pershing II ballistic missiles (launch weight 7,5 tons, length 10 m, diameter 1 m, range 1800 km, speed 3000 m / s, warhead weight 900 kg radar seeker) or Iskander-M (starting weight 3,8 tons, length 7,2 m, diameter 0,92 m, range 500 km, speed 2100 m / s, warhead weight 480 kg, radar seeker).

            I wonder what kind of armor-piercing kinetic warhead has a large elongation with an explosive explosive charge weighing 0,5-1,0 tons at a speed of 2-3 km / s? am
            1. Kvazar
              Kvazar 11 October 2015 01: 52 New
              +1
              There is no ball of rockets in the form of PKR at all. Neither the United States nor Russia. China, as a stronghold in the defense industry of the third world, declared a good laugh. When attacking an AUG or a meadow in the USSR on RCCs, they were needed for a strike about a square, to snooze the reduction of EW orders, it’s just stupidly not video and targets for a strike knew only a square, For granite there is a whole system of satellites of constant tracking, they live 48 days in total, One satellite on target. Therefore, they stopped building battleships to deflect air defense (they just caught up) and the price, the rocket with a warhead per tonne that you proposed and a flight speed of 3 seconds will weigh about 100 tons, the mass of the ship launch is about 500 tons. Range at such a speed of 1500km. At the moment, there are no such missiles in the world. the only attempt was the USSR draft storm. Warhead 2.3t, distance 8.5k, speed 1000 meters per second.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 11 October 2015 02: 55 New
                0
                Even the Chinese have it. You can laugh further ... The USSR and the USA have long been aeroballistic.
                "Storm" is not ballistic - for 1000ms you will not fly far.
                1. Kvazar
                  Kvazar 14 October 2015 21: 10 New
                  0
                  KVO missile ball look .... 100 meters (in China 200-300) that is, a warhead can actually fall in a radius of 500 meters .. Now multiply by the fact that the target has an offset of 700 meters per minute. In 15 minutes of flight, the target will go 10.000 meters at least. It’s not possible to put a GOS there yet .....
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 15 October 2015 00: 54 New
                    0
                    On Iskander optically contrasting GOS why?
              2. Operator
                Operator 11 October 2015 14: 36 New
                0
                I didn’t understand anything from your answer - I gave the official data “ball.racket” Pershing-2 and Iskander-M (starting weight, weight and speed of warheads, respectively 7,5t / 900kg / 3km / s and 3,8t / 480kg / 2km / s). What, damn it, 100 tons of starting weight and 500 tons of PU weight ?!

                As for the need for preliminary reconnaissance of the target location area (ship or ship’s formation) - this is equally necessary for cruise missiles, as well as for “ball. Rocket”. Moreover, reconnaissance for the former is an order of magnitude more relevant: the flight time at a distance of 1500 km for the KR is 100 minutes (100 km of the ship), for BR - 10 minutes (10 km of the ship).

                Again, I specifically designated only those “ball-rocket” models that have homing in the final section of the trajectory using an onboard radar seeker with a field of view of 30-40 km and a circular likely deviation of the warhead from the target 5-7 meters (Iskander-M) , i.e. with a boooooooooo large margin relative to the height / width of targets (frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, aircraft carriers).

                Therefore, those who are armed with Iskander-M, there is no need to create a specialized anti-ship "bal.raketa".
                1. Kvazar
                  Kvazar 14 October 2015 21: 27 New
                  0
                  Well, well, when your fantasies about an active GSN being pushed into a ball will be discussed in the next hundred or two hundred years. At this stage, neither the Russian Federation nor the United States have such technologies from the word at all. KVO of hits of 5-7 meters with a triple system (ISN + glonass + optical according to a preliminary image from space). That for the ship system is simply not realistic at the moment. And this is all for a fixed purpose. Yes distant ball. missiles the degree of difficulty increases by two orders and create. All that you have described is the Wishlist of any Navy in the world, to get into the boat with a rocket. Yes, only Wishlist will please the cruelty of the realities of this world. Therefore, a little bullet to others. And with your Wishlist for speed and mass of warhead, this fool will weigh a hundred tons a piece .....
              3. Aqela
                Aqela 15 October 2015 08: 35 New
                0
                Something you, dear Kvazar, "started for health, ended for peace"! I’m curious to know why such a fright rocket with a speed of 3 mach and a payload of 1000 kg should weigh 100 tons and a launcher of 500 tons? fool
                Rocket 3M25 Meteorite - Soviet strategic cruise missile. Intended to defeat strategic targets. The development of the rocket was carried out by the NGO engineering. The missile was created in three versions: ship ("Meteorite-M"), which was equipped with one converted 667M submarine with 12 launchers, aviation ("Meteorite-A") for arming Tu-95 aircraft, a missile for ground launchers ( "Meteorite-N").
                It has been developed since the late 70s. In 1984, work on the aviation option was discontinued. The marine version of the rocket was developed until 1989. According to the ground version, almost the entire scope of tests necessary for adoption and mass production was performed, however, due to the prevailing foreign policy and economic conditions of the early 90s, the missile system was not accepted for service. During the development of the complex, a number of unique systems were created, one of which was awarded the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation.
                .
                Performance characteristics
                Maximum range: 5500 km
                Maximum speed: 3 M
                Length: 12,8 m
                Diameter: 0,9 m
                Weight: 6380 kg
                Warhead weight: 1000 kg
                Guidance Type: ANN + ARL
                Carrier PU = Aircraft, ships, submarines, ground launchers

                tongue
                You already look at least the basic material on Wikipedia, before raving objections to issue. And then somehow ashamed of you. request no
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 11 October 2015 03: 01 New
              0
              In addition to penetrating, which the bunker and the battleship are all the same (ordinary bombs penetrated the war like that), there are also warheads diving under the keel. You even have her photo here a little higher ... As the bottom mines sank battleships with similar explosions, this one will work, and no heavy armor will save.
        2. Glad
          Glad 24 November 2015 14: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The flight velocity of the fragments consists of the velocity of warheads (~ 1000 m / s) and the detonation velocity of explosives (~ 8000 m / s).

          The speed of detonation of explosives and the speed of expansion of fragments of things, although interconnected, are not linear. This is to say that with a detonation velocity of 8 km / s it is unlikely that we will get a flight speed of fragments greater than 2 km / s.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 October 2015 17: 53 New
        0
        Similar English Storm Shadow
        She also has a tandem cumm. Warhead.
        She calmly pierces the armor of the ship.
        Armor steel is named among the media that it pierces:
        The two stage warhead is made up from an initial shaped charge,
        which cuts a passage through armor, concrete, earth, etc., allowing
        a larger following warhead to penetrate inside the target.

        A large diameter funnel (at least 40 cm) creates a huge cumulus.
        forces many times greater than anti-tank missiles.

        And, I’ll notice, such an expensive “bird” will not be sent to any place of the ship,
        and they will select the vulnerable. Where is any sensitive behind the armor (or
        explosive and fire hazardous) node of the ship.
        (The bomb that drowned Marat did not accidentally hit the powder cellar - that’s where
        and Rudel was aiming).
  28. Megatron
    Megatron 10 October 2015 04: 55 New
    +1
    All Kaptsov's articles can be described in just two words: bubuh-babah!
    And this was no exception.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 10 October 2015 22: 28 New
      +1
      Understand, collect data and give him a bream in the response article) No suggestions do not open your mouth
  29. Riv
    Riv 10 October 2015 11: 30 New
    +5
    How many dealt with structural steel - never heard of the Krupp brand. The author, in my opinion, does not fumble in the subject. The armor of the ship is built on a fundamentally different principle than the tank, or even in body armor. She also resists the projectile in a completely different way. For example, the famous steel 8C, from which the T-34 towers were made, did not differ in a high content of alloying components. Strength was achieved by heat treatment. Obviously, the vacation and hardening of the ship's hull is somewhat difficult. :))) Mechanical properties, at least close to the properties of the armor of a tank tower at a ship, must be obtained by alloying, and it is very expensive. At the same time, the tank is additionally covered with active protection and still it makes its way out of a 100 mm cannon of a thousand nine hundred shaggy year of manufacture. In the same way, the armor of any battleship will also be pierced. The process of interaction of armor, shell and explosives is not reduced to a primitive ratio of thickness / caliber / weight.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 10 October 2015 19: 36 New
      +3
      The generalized name of one of the best in the 40 years of the armor. Used only in the ship building. It has unique properties at that time. Including surface cementation and various hardnesses in layers. At the same time, the production cycle took a lot of time (several weeks) and cost as much as a golden steam train .... If the caramel armor is attached to a set of hulls and plates, certain processing steps take place. The first ship where welding was widely used and armor plates were used as a power set of the hull of the Lutz ship and its brothers. You confuse a tank and a ship. Reserved volumes have different and varying degrees of duplication of systems. This is not possible on modern ones, on old ships they could carry out restoration repairs from stocks directly during the battle (gas cutters and a welding machine
      1. Santa Fe
        10 October 2015 21: 59 New
        0
        Quote: Kvazar
        And stood like a golden locomotive ...

        confirm with links and calculation - weak?
        Quote: Kvazar
        and this production cycle took a lot of time (several weeks) And it was like a golden steam train ....

        those. over 100 years progress in metallurgy and metal processing remained in place
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 11 October 2015 01: 16 New
          +2
          On the tablet, honestly weakly) There is even a problem on koment to answer .... As a technologist by education) If it is interesting for the steels, their differences and manufacturing methods and technologies for steels 30-40 years, there are very good articles and books ( about more modern even 60 years you will not find the full cycle because the neck is not removed). So for reference and just about the topic, When evaluating the reservation of ships, all modern (well, almost all) come from the fact that at the beginning of the 40s, all countries that could build them had the same level of development of armor plates and their manufacturing technologies) And this is far from So. At that moment, and even now, the difference can reach 20% or more stability. Well, as a souvenir the only tank, an art installation on which they put carabule cemented armor with a thickness of 100 mm, was self-propelled elephant and that was due to the fact that the German Navy was not built at that time. And put on rivets because weld it without loss of properties is not realistic. More until the appearance of tanks peacetime obt it was not used. Learn how it was made (cementing armor according to the Krupp corporation method) you will learn many interesting things. About the melatobrabotki stepped a long time in front and very much. One electroslag remelting is worth what (15% of armor resistance) and this is the last century .... The most interesting thing is that the chemical composition is not the secret in the armor (although it is protected like the apple of an eye). But knowing the chemical composition of the armored steel by chemical composition, it is impossible to recreate those processes. Really modern armored manufacturing is a chemical. composition, technology of cooking, rolling, hardening, tempering, cementation, aging, I obtained uniformity, and the desired structure by layers, hardness and fluidity, tensile strength. And if you cook the bulletproof hemorrhoids an order of magnitude more, because on the tank, the entire hull can be pushed into the oven to relieve stress (or steel will break nafig in a month, even the ambient temperature plays a role there .....). It’s a hell for technologists to cook armored steel on the ship, the electrode from special glory is not only taxic to the state that the welder is in an autonomous oxygen apparatus, and his clothes must be disposed of after welding, as they are often cooked, because a person cannot physically draw out technology. The cost of all this is astronomical simply. This is the progress of metal processing since Even a sheet 100 mm thick withstands loads, as a sheet of 70 years old 300 mm gives a big plus. Now there is a war of technology. The realities of the entire spectrum are possessed by two countries of the USA and Russia. Because in addition to the armor, there are still a thousand points of failure for any of which eliminates all the rest of the 999 technologies, ....
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 October 2015 18: 01 New
          +1
          for SWEET_SIXTEEN:

          In fact, it’s worth considering the use in the military
          shipbuilding is not steel, but mounted metal-ceramic
          armor. And not everywhere, but only to cover important vulnerabilities.
          It is somehow more modern. And a 30-40% reduction in mass.
          1. Kvazar
            Kvazar 12 October 2015 02: 13 New
            0
            It has long been used, as it were. Do not consider konstruktorrv and military idiots, he will be smarter. Here the main issue is displacement, price, what is the purpose. In reality, there is simply no money and no more. The modern destroyer (really a cruiser, by technology and most importantly, the price next to the armored battleship of the WWII (closer to the price of the battleship of the WWII). Something bigger and more expensive VERY dorough
      2. Riv
        Riv 11 October 2015 05: 56 New
        0
        You see, what’s the matter ... Cementation involves the saturation of the surface layer of steel with carbon in order to increase hardness and wear resistance. In this case, of course, the fragility of the metal also increases. For armor, this is contraindicated. In addition, the ship's hull does not cast entirely. It either rips, which on cemented steel will lead to the development of surface cracks, or welds, which will lead to the normalization of cementite over a sufficiently large area and the emergence of strong internal stresses in the finished product.

        In general, the idea of ​​cementing armor (even tank) looks like a Himmler’s concrete steam locomotive.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 11 October 2015 12: 47 New
          0
          This technology is 80 years old. How was the main ship)
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 October 2015 10: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Riv
          Cementation involves the saturation of the surface layer of steel with carbon in order to increase hardness and wear resistance. In this case, of course, the fragility of the metal also increases. For armor, this is contraindicated.

          Just the opposite. As practice has shown, Krupp's armor and tanks reduces the armor penetration of the same 45 mm BBS from tabular Jacob de Marov values ​​to ridiculous values ​​of 30 mm by 150-200 m.
          Quote: Riv
          In general, the idea of ​​cementing armor (even tank) looks like a Himmler’s concrete steam locomotive.

          The KC armor (Kruppovskaya cemented) is used in the armor protection of ships from the end of the century before last.

          Cemented armor was used on tanks even in the USSR - on the T-26, T-28, T-50.
  30. Krieg_XIII
    Krieg_XIII 11 October 2015 13: 21 New
    0
    The author at what time is stuck at all?)))
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 12 October 2015 02: 16 New
      +1
      21 as if he were right, but he does not illuminate the complex, but a small part of only the system.
  31. Riv
    Riv 11 October 2015 22: 00 New
    +1
    Concrete locomotive ... :)))
  32. Operator
    Operator 11 October 2015 22: 04 New
    0
    Russian cruise missile X-101
    xnumx length m
    case diameter 0,75 m
    wing span 4,4 m
    starting weight 2400 kg
    warhead weight 400 kg
    speed 270 m / s
    5500 flight range km
    EPR 0,01 sq.m
    QUO 2-10 m
  33. Kruglov
    Kruglov 12 October 2015 09: 09 New
    0
    ... 2nd aspect is the use of RCC in hypersound. Probably very, very few people know the test results of such missiles !!! When such a missile hits the ship’s hull, a tremendous amount of kinetic energy is released ... Where will it go? How will the armored plates behave in this case? How will ship electronics behave in this case? I think that the armored target ship may not be penetrated, but it will be 100% disabled and will not be able to continue to function fully - which is actually what the attacker needs ...
    ______________________________________________________________

    Years of commercials in the 70s, I read the newspaper "behind the rupe hedgehog," that is, it was called "abroad" ...
    So, it was written there if my memory serves me that they supposedly found the Britons on some sort of “garbage dump” there, armor plate from some side there, some kind of battleship of the times of the Second World War, and decided to check how she said yourself under the blow of something flying, winged, anti-ship ... It is said - done. Secured. Smeared. So what? Never mind! A plate of that, if only henna! Well, if only a dent for a couple of centimeters ... And, as they say - that's it! Well, actually ours commented on it in such a way that they say they did good ships before, and now they have rockets, and this one is lousy! But our armor is strong, and our ships and tanks are fast! Here, somehow it was recalled ...
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 October 2015 11: 55 New
      0
      And the rocket did not regret it? Why did you have to do it if the gunsmiths and so everything is approximately clear ...

      Any armored ship is heated by an explosion under the keel, just like unarmored. This is a rocket torpedo, a bottom mine, diving warhead RCC.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2015 12: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Kruglov
      So, it was written there if my memory serves me that they supposedly found the Britons on some sort of “garbage dump” there, armor plate from some side there, some kind of battleship of the times of the Second World War, and decided to check how she said yourself under the blow of something flying, winged, anti-ship ... It is said - done. Secured. Smeared. So what? Never mind! A plate of that, if only henna! Well, if only a dent for a couple of centimeters ... And, as they say - that's it!

      The naval authorities were guided by roughly the same considerations when they re-opened the Iowa under Reagan and began their modernization. Even the whole concept of KUG for this business was pulled out of naphthalene. Say, the vast majority of anti-ship missiles, such as the same "exosets", penetrate a maximum of 152 mm of armor - so that the LC will be superprotected from modern missiles. And he himself will sow fear and horror with his "tomahawks", "harpoons" and 16 "shells.
      At the same time, naval fantasies soared to the heights - and among the modernization projects appeared “hermaphrodites” with a flight deck and “harriers” instead of a stern tower (“Iso” and “Hyuuga” in a new way).

      At the same time, no one, for some reason, reminded the naval officers that the enemy would not have “harpoons” and “exosets”, but P-35, P-1000 and P-700. smile
      1. Operator
        Operator 12 October 2015 13: 59 New
        0
        П-1000 / 3М-70 "Volcano" is weight (starting weight 7 t, speed 2 M).
      2. Kvazar
        Kvazar 14 October 2015 21: 02 New
        +1
        Well, only the naval considered LUGs a more difficult goal. As a result, monsters of 7-8 tons were born and a sharp reduction in anti-ship missiles to 8-12 pieces that was not enough to break through the air defense .... It was believed that without an attack on the battleship it was necessary to threaten the chutli not two more than count. hits which equaled the cruiser’s onboard volley in general ... (6-8 heavy missiles) On an aircraft carrier from 1 to 4 .....
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 00: 53 New
          0
          Break through with simulators ... What AB is that the LC of one granite under the keel is enough to break it in half like a bottom mine. AB is covered from above with cluster munition.
    3. Glad
      Glad 24 November 2015 15: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Kruglov
      ... For years in the 70s, I read the newspaper "for a rupee hedgehog," that is, it was called "abroad" ...
      So, it was written there if my memory serves me that they supposedly found the Britons on some sort of “garbage dump” there, armor plate from some side there, some kind of battleship of the times of the Second World War, and decided to check how she said yourself under the blow of something flying, winged, anti-ship ... It is said - done. Secured. Smeared. So what? Never mind! A plate of that, if only henna! Well, if only a dent for a couple of centimeters ... And, as they say - that's it!


      Stove something, maybe nothing. As soon as the structure assembled from such plates behaves. The armor belt is not monolithic. In other words, this is not a single piece of armor steel "from bow to stern." It is assembled from slabs. And what will happen to this type-setting structure in case of explosion in contact with it, for example, 300-500 kg of explosives with a TNT equivalent of 1-1,3? The Lord knows him ...
  34. Logos
    Logos 6 November 2015 03: 40 New
    0
    Japanese battleships of the Second World War were completely drowned by American air bombs, despite all their armor. It is strange that the author is convinced that modern bombs and missiles will not be able to do what their predecessors were capable of.
  35. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 21 November 2015 15: 20 New
    0
    In 1945, the world's first atomic explosion was carried out at the Alamogordo training ground (Nevada. USA).
    In 1949, the first atomic device in the USSR was blown up at the Semipolatensky training ground.
    In 1949, the NATO bloc was created.
    In 1955, the Warsaw Treaty bloc was created.
    In 1963, the United States began the development of the doctrine of "mutually guaranteed destruction" (abbreviated as "MAD" from the English, "mutually assured destruction").
    In 1975, the United States adopted Operational Plan No. 5, which distributes the nuclear forces of the United States and its NATO allies between 25 targets in the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty countries.
    .....
    Any major armed conflict of the major world powers, with the use of fleets and weapons thereof, used on a massive scale, will a priori develop into an atomic one.
    The task for any warship is created taking into account its use in an unlimited nuclear conflict. Everything else is secondary. The fleet is being made for the Third World War.
    If this fleet is not Rhodesia of course.
    Distracting from the “rivets” in the form of reserved volumes and the possibility of placing the headlamp behind a ten-centimeter sheet of Krupp's cemented armor, I’ll say that under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons, the thickness and presence of armor does not matter, only the distance from the epicenter matters.
    Temporary value, because instead of the bases of the fleet there are already large radioactive funnels.
    He shot himself and wait for the answer to arrive. Anyway.
    That's all I wanted to say.
  36. Glad
    Glad 24 November 2015 15: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Operator
    For a tandem warhead (a caliber cumulative precharge with a diameter of 533 mm and a sub-caliber high-explosive penetrating part with a diameter of 100 mm), armor piercing will reach 2000 mm of homogeneous steel.


    Absolutely right! This is precisely what the respected Author of the article does not take into account. The impact core with a speed of 2-3 km / s will not be held by any sane passive protection. It does not make sense to increase speed above these limits, since purely production difficulties will arise with the manufacture of a large-sized cumulative charge. And he is not needed at all. Redundant.
    In addition, at such rates of interaction, the physics of the process is completely different than with static or low-speed interactions. If in a nutshell and purely simplified, then at a speed of more than 2-3 km / s the diameter of the hole grows, and not the penetration depth.

    Well, and behind the shock core, the main combat charge quite calmly penetrates into the body and ... and that's it ... wink
  37. Glad
    Glad 24 November 2015 16: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Kvazar
    For a combined reservation, with a cover from dz from the first pre-charge, and dynamic protection from the armor that has broken through the armor, the kumu is five meters away from the residual stream.

    Hmm ... Everything would be fine, but how to maintain such protection? And to equip? Or will the ship always go with the equipped DZ? Then any accident in the form of an explosion or fire will be deadly to the ship. This is a floating bomb! How much explosive does it take to stop the shock core formed by the RCC warhead, and not the ATGM?
    There are more questions than answers ...
    Not everything that is good for tanks is good for ships.