Military Review

What can a ship do ten tons of explosives?

166
What can a ship do ten tons of explosives?



Twenty-four "Long-Lance" so mutilated "Mikumu" that the cruiser has ceased to be like a warship. An hour later, his wrecked skeleton was photographed by an American plane, that shot became a symbol of victory at Midway. Left by the crew, the cruiser was still floating, but its fate was sealed. The destroyers sent to search the next night did not find anything but floating debris ...

The paradox of the death of “Mykuma” is in the very possibility of keeping afloat after the detonation of torpedo ammunition. Each “long-lance” contained 490 kg of THA explosives and an oxygen cylinder with a capacity of 980 liters. The explosive mixture multiplied by twenty-four is the equivalent of 40 ... 50 to European or American torpedoes!



Under normal conditions, two or three hits of torpedoes were enough to knock the ship into the abyss in a matter of minutes. And here - the cruiser did not even fall apart in half.

The paradox is explained by the laws of nature: an explosion in the air by its destructive force is ten times inferior to the underwater. That is why a single torpedo under the keel is able to break the ship in half, but even a whole rack of such torpedoes cannot lead to the instantaneous death of the ship, when they are detonated above the waterline.

But can everything be explained only by differences in the properties of the medium? Russian researcher Oleg Teslenko draws attention to many other oddities in this naval detective story.

* * *

Having lost four aircraft carriers near Midway, the Japanese decided on the last decisive step: to shoot the damned atoll from the guns of their cruisers. Forward on the 35 nodes rushed “Kumano”, “Suzuya”, “Mogami” and “Mikuma”. When it was less than three hours from the atoll, an American submarine was spotted ahead. The cruisers began a dodge maneuver, during which the Mogami struck Mikume with a ram attack. The collision of two 15 thousand tons of hulks did not pass without consequences for both: the entire nose of the “Mogami”, right up to the first tower of the Civil Code, turned to the side of 90 degrees! And in the fuel tanks "Mykuma" formed 20-meter hole, which, to all, served as a source of treacherous oil trail.

“Kumano” and “Suzuya” retreated in full swing to the north-west, and two losers went around on 12 nodes, praying that they would not be noticed by the Americans. Naturally, they were noticed. And the fun began.

The first attack was successfully repulsed by anti-aircraft means of the ships. The pilots of the Marine Corps did not achieve a single hit, only by “refreshing” the cruiser with clouds of fragments from close explosive bombs. The only vivid event was the death ram: Dick Fleming's wounded plane repeated Gastello's feat, ramming the Mikuma TKR (fragments of the plane can be observed on the main figure, on the roof of the fifth tower of the Civil Code). However, this had no particular effect: the cruisers continued to retreat into the open ocean.

The end came the next morning. The Mogami and Mikuma already badly battered for the previous 24 hours (if not more) were hit by airplanes with the AB Enterprise, (more than 80 sorties in total). And, probably, this could have been the end of this story, if not for one BUT.

“Mogami” returned home under its own power. But his sistership died.

At first glance, everything is explained by the fatal detonation of torpedo ammunition on board the “Mikuma”. The crew of the second cruiser managed to avoid this by throwing all the 24 torpedoes overboard immediately after the navigation accident at Midway.



The presence of torpedo weapons on Japanese cruisers is still considered an ambiguous decision. With the help of this weapons many brilliant victories were won (the sunk cruisers of the Allies “Java”, “De Reuters”, “Perth”, “Houston”), but the price was too high. Three of the four Mogami-class cruisers became victims of the detonation of their own torpedoes. Perhaps the whole point is the unsuccessful storage of oxygen “Long Lances” in unprotected compartments and SLT on the upper deck? It is quite possible ... But we will again be transported to the central part of the Pacific Ocean, to the hot waters at Midway Atoll. There, where on June 7, 1942 the American deck aviation tormented by the barely alive Japanese cruisers. Moreover, with very paradoxical consequences.

What is the reason for the miraculous salvation of one and the death of the other? After all, “Mogami” and “Mikuma” belonged to the same type and were identical in design. Moreover, if you rely on official data on the course of the battle, the miraculously escaped “Mogami” received much more damage than his comrades!

Torpedoes are just a consequence. And here is the root cause: during the air attacks, both cruisers received FIVE direct hits from the bombs (not counting the numerous close gaps and the plane crashing on the Mikumu).

Hits in “Mogami” came in including. to the aft tower of the Civil Code (the entire cannon servant was killed), to the middle part of the ship in the MO region (fire in the torpedo repository, fortunately for the Japanese - empty), as well as to the nose bow area of ​​the Civil Code, just before the superstructure. As a result, the disfigured “Mogami”, after refueling in the ocean, developed 20-nodal speed and returned safely to the base.


Refueling the damaged Mogami from the tanker Nity Maru, after which the crew of the cruiser eliminated the need for fuel economy. And the opportunity to increase the course

And here’s the main question of this article: could the 500-pound American bombs penetrate the Mogami 35-mm deck?

What if so? So the explosions thundered below the main armored deck, in the engine rooms and the ammunition cellar ("... right in front of the nose superstructure"). Hundreds of kilograms of explosives and tens of thousands of heated fragments, riddled all bulkheads and turbines. Not to mention the consequences of getting into the ammunition.

And the ship, as if nothing had happened, returns to the base. The speed of 20 knots with a severed nose - means that the entire cruiser propulsion system operated at maximum power. Despite the allegedly riddled turbines and steam lines.

It turns out that the thin 35-mm deck proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for 227 kg bombs. Otherwise, it is not possible to explain the results of that fight.

The bold conclusions of O. Teslenko are somewhat lost against the background of damages of the same type “Mikuma”. Five bombs - two each at the left and right side Defense Ministry, as well as into the tower of the Civil Code No. XXUMX. Officially, the cruiser lost the course. On board there was a strong fire, which, after an hour and a half, led to the detonation of the torpedo ammunition. After that, the Mogami and two destroyers removed the surviving crew members of the Mykum and moved further towards the Wake Atoll.

Even with the naked eye it is clear that there is a logical inconsistency in the description. The heroic hour and a half standing under the continuous attacks of American aircraft. What did the Japanese expect? Wanted to look at the fireworks? When torpedoes jerk on the burning immobilized cruiser.

One of the laws of the sea war: as soon as a ship loses a turn in a combat zone, a command is immediately removed from it, and the destroyers are killed off the damaged one. The slightest delay threatens the death of the entire squadron. This rule was followed by all naval commanders at all times.

With great probability, this was the case. A fire was raging on Mikume, but it never slowed down below the 12-14 nodes. Also, as his “Mogami” sistership, where the fight against fire also took about an hour.

Not a single fragment of the bombs could penetrate under the armor deck and disrupt the operation of the ship’s machinery. The hits in the middle part of the “Mykuma” ignited the torpedoes that were there. At first, it did not threaten the ship until the fire reached the combat charging compartments, which were stored separately from the torpedoes. An hour and a half later, an explosion thundered, which completely destroyed the cruiser. Although it did not disperse the “Mikumu” into dust, as might have been expected from an explosion of 50 torpedoes.

Similar история occurred three decades later, 30 August 1974, on the roads of Sevastopol. The explosion of ammunition on a large anti-submarine ship "Brave".



In total, the two drum shops of the Volna aft air defense missile system had 15 B-600 anti-aircraft missiles. And this is serious. The first stage of the rocket consisted of a solid fuel accelerator PRD-36, equipped with 14 cylindrical powder checkers, with a total weight of 280 kg. The second stage directly represented a rocket made according to the aerodynamic “duck” scheme with a solid fuel engine containing 125 kg of solid powder. Warhead - high-explosive type, with ready-striking elements. The total weight of the warhead was 60 kg, of which 32 kg is an alloy of trotyl with hexogen, the rest is shrapnel.

Six tons of explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the firmament and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid.

Despite the terrible internal explosion, the small BOD (5000 tons, which is half the size of modern destroyers and three times less than the mentioned Japanese cruisers) lasted more than five hours, and all this time his crew fought desperately for the survivability of the ship. The rescue works of the “Brave” were stopped when the fire began to threaten the storage of aviation fuel and the cellar with depth charges. The victims of the tragedy were 19 sailors.

It is curious how the results of the devastating explosions on the "Mikume" and "Brave" are consistent with the results of tests of modern anti-ship missiles?

How do their relatively light warheads, the content by mass is ten times less explosive, cause such terrible destruction to ships?



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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wedmak
    Wedmak 18 December 2015 07: 21 New
    +9
    Twenty five again. I can no longer understand why such a fierce defense of the reservation of ships? Yes, understand that no booking will save you from the failure of critical systems.
    Any anti-ship missiles will cause a fire, failure of weapons and control systems. That’s all, this ship can be considered withdrawn from the battle and is not dangerous. If a monster like the Mogami would walk now, disabling his main caliber would not be a problem. His air defense would simply not be able to cope with the attack. And to place AK-630-type assault rifles there will not allow the placement of air defense points, the mass and dimensions of these assault rifles. Putting the RCC mines instead of the towers is also not a very smart idea. One hit and hello. The dimensions of the cruiser by no means allow you to miss.
    The war at sea changed its appearance, and warships changed accordingly.
    1. alex86
      alex86 18 December 2015 07: 56 New
      35
      I'm really amateurish:
      1. The presence of armor is better than its absence
      2. A ton of armor is much cheaper than a ton of missile defense.
      3. Decide should be expediency - you won’t take it all down, but you won’t hide everything with armor half a meter
      4. Any military unit is an expendable element - it will be enough for a while, but not forever.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 18 December 2015 08: 04 New
        15
        In general, I agree. I will add only the 5-th item coming from the 4-th.
        5. The use of armor and air defense should ensure the combat stability of the ship as long as possible.
        Good air defense will avoid damage, and armor in particularly critical places will save lives, instruments and equipment. Which is done in general. The armor is really different, not centimeters of steel, but Kevlar and the like. RPC will not save from a direct hit (supersonic, large mass), but it will save it from fragments.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 18 December 2015 08: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          Any anti-ship missiles will cause a fire, failure of weapons and control systems. That’s all, this ship can be considered withdrawn from the battle and is not dangerous.

          So, as soon as the ship is withdrawn from battle, it must burn up and drown with the whole team
          Quote: Wedmak
          and armor in especially critical places will save lives, instruments and equipment

          This proposal does not make sense, just as it makes no sense to protect individual components of the tank
          Quote: Wedmak
          RPC will not save from a direct hit (supersonic, large mass)

          NATO countries have multi-ton supersonic anti-ship missiles?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 18 December 2015 13: 15 New
            +1
            So, as soon as the ship is withdrawn from battle, it must burn up and drown with the whole team

            What an absurd conclusion? Op just turns into a target. And to spend ammunition on it or not, is already a separate issue.
            This proposal does not make sense, just as it makes no sense to protect individual components of the tank

            Comparison with the tank is generally not correct at all. This time. Second, in the tank, in fact, separate parts are protected. Somewhere multi-layer booking + DZ, somewhere stupidly armored steel plate. Sometimes KAZ also hangs over all this.
            NATO countries have multi-ton supersonic anti-ship missiles?

            It is a matter of time, money and seafarers' decision. I don't think they will have a problem making an analogue of Vulcan.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 18 December 2015 18: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              What an absurd conclusion? Op just turns into a target.

              The question is whether it turns into a target with a chance to retreat or drowns from the first hit.
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is a matter of time, money and the decision of sailors

              Right. But they still need to be launched from somewhere. And such colossals require very large and expensive carriers.
              1. NIKNN
                NIKNN 19 December 2015 18: 03 New
                +2
                Well, firstly or in ten, it doesn’t matter
                And here’s the main question of this article: could the 500-pound American bombs penetrate the Mogami 35-mm deck?

                Like paper, not even discussed.
                The following: Damage to any military unit does not mean depriving it of full combat effectiveness (examples of ramming). Even if the BC is in the dock and the armament has not been removed from it, it is capable of conducting a DB even from the dock (examples are the use of art. Armament of the Baltic ships (locked) to protect Leningrad in the Second World War. We need to reason in accordance with the specific combat situation. hi
            2. Lt. Air Force stock
              Lt. Air Force stock 18 December 2015 19: 40 New
              +3
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is a matter of time, money and seafarers' decision. I don't think they will have a problem making an analogue of Vulcan.

              What will Volcano be installed on? The USA has 62 Arly Burke and 22 Ticonderoges with UVP. The volcano will not fit in the UVP, there is no place for it on the deck (the United States, on the contrary, seeks to fully rely on the UVP, an example of which are the Harpoon anti-ship missile systems in inclined launchers, which will be abandoned in favor of the LRASM which can be launched from the Mk.41 UVP).
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 19 December 2015 08: 45 New
                0
                They will make a vertical start and shove it in the shafts for Tomahawks.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 19 December 2015 11: 32 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  and put in Tomahawk mines

                  The Tomahawks have a diameter of 0,53 m, a mass of 1-1,5 t, a length of 5-6,25 m.
                  The Volcano has a diameter of 0,88 m, a mass of 5-9,3 tons, a length of 11,7 m.
                  How many of these craps will fit into one Burke?
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 18 December 2015 17: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: Wedmak
          In general, I agree. I will add only the 5-th item coming from the 4-th.
          5. The use of armor and air defense should ensure the combat stability of the ship as long as possible.
          Good air defense will avoid damage, and armor in particularly critical places will save lives, instruments and equipment. Which is done in general. The armor is really different, not centimeters of steel, but Kevlar and the like. RPC will not save from a direct hit (supersonic, large mass), but it will save it from fragments.

          Everything is correctly said to you ... but I will add. Besides the air defense of the ship, as an active defense against attack, there should be a strong electronic warfare system. Armor is definitely not a guarantee of the unsinkability of any ship.
          In addition, it is necessary to develop intensively the systems (which are) of early detection in order to be able to strike the first one. This is all in the complex and there is a kind of "armor" of the ship, and not additional tons of iron.
      2. YakimovSS
        YakimovSS 18 December 2015 10: 01 New
        -1
        Maybe I'm wrong, but the main task of the ships is an attack. Based on this, I would like to hear options for an attack by a group of ships, using their tons of armor, instead of tons of weapons.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 18 December 2015 10: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: YakimovSS
          the main task of the ships is to attack

          You replayed in World of Warships
          Quote: YakimovSS
          using your tons of armor instead of tons of weapons.

          Why should armor be installed INSTEAD of weapons?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 18 December 2015 13: 17 New
            +1
            Why should armor be installed INSTEAD of weapons?

            May I answer? Because the displacement and dimensions of the ships will not allow to establish a lot of both of them. I have to choose.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 18 December 2015 18: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              Because the displacement and dimensions of the ships

              About the dimensions just wrong. The armor integrates with the hull and bulkheads, so the amount of usable space is not affected as much as it seems. Displacement is the amount of water displaced by the underwater part of the hull, the mass of which is equal to the weight of the entire ship. But an increase in weight does not mean that you cannot put anything else on the ship, with the same dimensions.
            2. Bennert
              Bennert 18 December 2015 22: 14 New
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              Because the displacement and dimensions of the ships will not allow to establish a lot of that

              Then how did everything fit on ships of the Second World War?

              TCR Baltimore
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Simple
        Simple 18 December 2015 14: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: alex86
        2. A ton of armor is much cheaper than a ton of missile defense.

        a ton of armor, without a ton of air defense. Nothing.

        4 × 2 - 25 mm / 60,
        2 × 2 - 13,2-mm machine gun
        universal 127-mm / 40 Type 89 4X2 = 8 the same something that means (even without a radar fuse on the projectile)
        ==================================
        Accordingly, to a ton of armor, you still need a ton of air defense.
        otherwise no armor will save
      4. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 18 December 2015 19: 36 New
        0
        Quote: alex86
        I'm really amateurish:
        1. The presence of armor is better than its absence
        2. A ton of armor is much cheaper than a ton of missile defense.
        3. Decide should be expediency - you won’t take it all down, but you won’t hide everything with armor half a meter
        4. Any military unit is an expendable element - it will be enough for a while, but not forever.

        You can’t reserve radars. After the destruction of the radars, the ship will go blind, and they will hit it until it falls apart. Recall the same Bismarck, a torpedo wedges the rudders, the ship becomes uncontrollable and hammer on it until it goes to the bottom.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 18 December 2015 10: 08 New
      11
      Let me insert my five cents:
      First, the Mikum's deck armor was not always 35-mm thick:
      "The middle deck above the power plant was assembled from 35-mm CNC plates. Closer to the sides it passed into armor bevels 60 mm thick, 4,20 m wide and 20 ° inclined, joining the upper edges of the main belt. The cellars were covered by a flat lower deck [ note 4] from 40-mm slabs, connected with belts at the extremities. "
      And secondly, who, and most importantly, how, determined that the entire ammunition load of 24 torpedoes of 610 mm caliber - the famous Long Lance - exploded on the Mikum. But this, as the author noted:
      Each long-lance contained 490 kg of TNA explosives and an oxygen tank with a capacity of 980 liters.

      Those. if all this stuff exploded at once, the explosion of steam boilers would also be inevitable (which sometimes, by destructive consequences, amounted to an explosion of ammunition of the Civil Code), and most likely it would also explode ammunition, including aft turrets GK. All of this would happen as soon as possible. And in this case, the cruiser would inevitably break into several parts. The crew would most likely die completely. But that did not happen.
      And yet - information for consideration: after the very first battles in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese, more than once in time, will be convinced of the truly destructive power of their own torpedoes, at the very first damage to their ship, at least the theoretical possibility of detonation of torpedoes, they immediately got rid of them, including like shooting somewhere in the open ocean.
      About the death of "Mikuma":
      During the battle at Midway Atoll, Mikuma was part of a close cover group. On the evening of June 5, 1942, while evading an underwater attack, a Mogami crashed into Mikuma. Mikuma did not suffer serious damage in this clash and was left to cover the Mogami.
      On June 6, cruisers were attacked by US base aircraft from Midway, but received no hits, but the downed Vindikeytor bomber crashed into the Mikuma’s main-caliber tower. On June 7, 1942, cruisers were attacked by American carrier-based aircraft from the Enterprise and Hornet aircraft carriers. At least 5 aerial bombs fell into the Mikum, which destroyed one of the main-caliber towers and disabled two engine rooms, as a result of which the Mikum lost speed. There was a fire on the ship. When the flame spread along the cruiser, detonation of (all?) Torpedoes occurred, causing irreparable damage. The crew left the ship; by the evening of June 7, 1942, the Mikuma sank. Human casualties exceeded 650 people, including the commander of the ship

      I have the honor.
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 18 December 2015 10: 33 New
        -2
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Closer to the sides, it turned into armored bevels with a thickness of 60 mm, a width of 4,20 m and a slope of 20 °, which are joined with the upper edges of the main belt. The cellar was covered by a flat lower deck [approx. 4] of 40-mm plates,

        Frankly, that 35, that 40, that even 60 mm - do not weather
        "Mogami" was a "Washingtonian" with all the ensuing consequences
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Yes, and most likely would have pulled more and ammunition incl. aft turrets GK. All of this would happen as soon as possible. And in this case, the cruiser would inevitably break into several parts

        As you can see, he did not break
        here is an example of an underwater explosion, hitting everything one Long Lance in Minneapolis, the bow was blown off immediately. Like New Orleans

        Quote: Aleksandr72
        At least 5 aerial bombs hit Mikumu, which destroyed one of the main caliber towers and disabled two engine rooms, as a result of which the Mikuma lost track

        So it's a lie
        in an article about this is written in detail
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        I have the honor.

        Wrong too
        The presence of honor is not proved in words. A meaningless expression taken out of the context of the conversations of 19th century officers. "I have the honor to introduce myself", "I had the honor to meet you." Those. banal politeness, there was no question of the presence or absence of honor from the speaker himself. And now they began to throw briefly - "I have the honor." Or maybe you don't, how do I know. It is necessary to find out in a duel))

        Isn't it funny?
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 18 December 2015 10: 50 New
          +6
          Quote: BENNERT
          BENNERT Today, 10: 33 ↑ New
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          Closer to the sides, it turned into armored bevels with a thickness of 60 mm, a width of 4,20 m and a slope of 20 °, which are joined with the upper edges of the main belt. The cellar was covered by a flat lower deck [approx. 4] of 40-mm plates,

          Oleg, did your chtoli block your old account? Are you now benert? wink
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 18 December 2015 11: 00 New
            0
            the flag of the Russian Federation is no longer attached - another reason for political debate, but there is no time, so many technical issues need to be discussed, so now it’s incognito
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 12: 12 New
          +6
          Quote: BENNERT
          Wrong too
          The presence of honor is not proved in words. A meaningless expression taken out of the context of the conversations of 19th century officers. "I have the honor to introduce myself", "I had the honor to meet you." Those. banal politeness, there was no question of the presence or absence of honor from the speaker himself. And now they began to throw briefly - "I have the honor." Or maybe you don't, how do I know. It is necessary to find out in a duel))
          Isn't it funny?

          Alexander72 shortened the expression "I have the honor to bow out", and you immediately go to a duel
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 18 December 2015 22: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            and you immediately to a duel

            On lightsabers
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 23: 02 New
              +1
              Quote: BENNERT
              On lightsabers

              I have not yet watched new star wars.
              Such an expression really existed among the officers of the Russian Empire, and those who had the honor understood it.
        3. Silhouette
          Silhouette 18 December 2015 15: 54 New
          0
          Quote: BENNERT
          And now they began to throw shortly - "I have the honor"


          Posturing and relapse of inflamed pride.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 23: 13 New
            0
            Quote: Silhouette
            Posturing and relapse of inflamed pride.

            On the site there is a poser with the avatar "midshipman", maybe ask him about the honor.
      2. Operator
        Operator 18 December 2015 12: 26 New
        +2
        On "Mikum" oxygen tanks of several torpedoes, loaded into a torpedo tube along one of the sides, exploded. There were no torpedo warheads detonating.
        Otherwise the Mikuma would have sunk immediately.
    4. avt
      avt 18 December 2015 10: 55 New
      11
      Quote: Wedmak
      Again twenty-five.

      Yeah, another collection of anecdotes from Oleg. Especially "pleased" this
      A similar story happened three decades later, on 30 of August 1974 of the year on the roads of Sevastopol. Explosion of ammunition on a large anti-submarine ship “Brave”.
      And then nothing is hesitating
      Six tons of explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the firmament and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid.

      Despite the terrible internal hull explosion, the small BOD (5000 tons, which is half that of modern destroyers and half that of the mentioned Japanese cruisers) lasted more than five hours, and all this time his crew fought desperately for the survivability of the ship.
      wassat Oleg ! Well, finally decide - either put on your panties, or take off the cross. Why are these phantom glitches? The site disassembled the "Brave" disaster in parts and added quite specifically in the comments, and Az sinner also cited excerpts from the report, even on the simulation of the catastrophe in order to check the operation of the fire system, when the full-scale model was made. then? The fact that people no longer remember the details of that disaster?
      It is curious how the results of the devastating explosions on the "Mikume" and "Brave" are consistent with the results of tests of modern anti-ship missiles?
      Well, this is already starting to remind the diagnosis .....
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 12: 07 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        Well, this is already starting to remind the diagnosis .....

        Write your correct article, read, rejoice.
        And then you remind you of the masochists barbiturate, do not like it, but still read and comment.
        The article, in fact, does not seem to be about the "Brave" or "Mikumo" disaster.
        1. avt
          avt 18 December 2015 17: 29 New
          +5
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Write your correct article, read, rejoice.

          And go to the site archive and read the article on "The Brave" and all the comments to it, including mine.
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          And then you remind you of the masochists barbiturate, do not like it, but still read and comment.

          To the adherents of the sect, it’s deep ... to the moon, all but the opinion of the adored adherent and his own. I only comment on what I read - it’s true, but what I don’t read from Oleg, I wrote so frankly about this more than once - I read the headline, I understood who wrote it, was convinced of the rightness and did not read it. Do not believe? Again, there is an archive of the site and my comments - look and find it, you’ll find that I’m lying - put it out and shame, but I don’t recommend farting in the puddle - you’ll remain fools yourself.
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The article, in fact, does not seem to be about the "Brave" or "Mikumo" disaster.

          laughing Well, yes - they passed by, and when Oleg turned away, they wrote themselves into the article, or rather, Mikumo "held Oleg's hands behind his back, and" Brave "in the article.
          Quote: avt
          Well, this is already starting to remind the diagnosis ....
          fool diagnosis - an adept of the sect them. Oleg Kaptsov "sinless"
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 23: 41 New
            -2
            Quote: avt
            And go to the site archive and read the article on "The Brave" and all the comments to it, including mine.

            At first I thought to send it far.
            Excuse respected AVT.
            Quote: avt
            To the adherents of the sect, it’s deep ... to the moon, all but the opinion of the adored adherent and his own.

            I also love beer.
            Quote: avt
            . I only comment on what I read - this
            right

            I sincerely believe in this because I got in with mine. amateurish commentary.
            Quote: avt
            Well yes - they passed by

            Instead of them you can enter other names or not?
            Quote: avt
            diagnosis - an adept of the sect them. Oleg Kaptsov "sinless"
    5. RPG_
      RPG_ 18 December 2015 10: 56 New
      +1
      The armor will save lives and the ship itself, which after such a plague, can escape at full speed to the base for repair.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 20 December 2015 10: 47 New
        +1
        As soon as they begin to build ships with armor, immediately the relevant organizations will begin to develop new warheads for anti-ship missiles. And something tells me that they’ll finish much earlier than shipbuilders with much lower costs. lol
    6. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 20 December 2015 16: 32 New
      0
      If you can’t understand, then why again enter into an argument? Isn't it easier to miss?

      Where does this "mutton" stubbornness come from? And not only from the side of the author but also yours?
  2. Waltasar
    Waltasar 18 December 2015 07: 22 New
    +5
    I understand that now the debate about the need for armor for the modern fleet will start again? ..
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 18 December 2015 07: 26 New
      33
      Will the debate about the need for armor for the modern fleet begin again?

      Well, this is a local entertainment event. It is carried out approximately once a month. wink
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 18 December 2015 07: 45 New
        12
        Quote: Wedmak
        It is carried out approximately once a month.

        Recently, more often, worthy opponents have appeared in Oleg. Fortunately, while they do not throw glasses, but verbal battles are already pulling for petty hooliganism lol .
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 18 December 2015 08: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: inkass_98
          Recently, more often, worthy opponents have appeared in Oleg. Fortunately, while they do not throw glasses, but verbal battles are already pulling for petty hooliganism

          Yeah. Probably time to finish, pall. I will try not to participate anymore and not to support the discussion of this topic, as before.
      2. Banshee
        Banshee 18 December 2015 08: 33 New
        25
        Quote: Wedmak
        this is a local entertainment event


        But that's funny!

        In fact, if you do not go into the conclusions about the necessity / uselessness of armor, then the cases are interesting. I read with pleasure. Argue about the findings - God forbid!
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 December 2015 11: 40 New
      -1
      Of course, it is needed because the combat stability of such a ship will be an order of magnitude higher than usual, and even if the cost of modern ships, namely its internal equipment, is taken into account, the benefit of using armored alloys will be obvious.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 18 December 2015 13: 24 New
        0
        combat stability of such a ship will be much higher than usual

        Yes, who would argue. It's not about that, it's about how much it will all cost, what kind of appearance such a ship will have, and what combat tasks it will be able to carry out.
        It is clear that the nail can be hammered with an 100-ton press, but it is easier to do it with a hammer.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 18 December 2015 17: 13 New
          0
          Now 1 ton of alloy steel costs 350 dollars - somewhere 24850 rubles, if you take 10000 tons, then this is 248500000 rubles, given the cost of the current ships of several billion rubles - the price is very reasonable. If you take titanium armor, then the price will be 10 times more.
    3. tokens2
      tokens2 19 December 2015 00: 59 New
      0
      I understand that now the debate about the need for armor for the modern fleet will begin again.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jf2dpJurKc
      Rather, they argue how to "make" the anti-ship missile system "fly" into a baseball armored trap laughing from the author of the article.
      Well, why not?
      Well, as I understand this research hi
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 18 December 2015 07: 27 New
    +4
    The shot of the damage to Mikumu is impressive, as the crew survived ... amazing.
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 18 December 2015 07: 56 New
      17
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      how else the crew survived.

      In this respect, I completely agree with Kaptsov - the security of the crew was much better: in the photo - the battleship "Eagle", after Tsushima. Crew casualties are relatively small, despite dire external damage
      "In the battle received 76 hits (according to Campbell). Of these, 5 - 305-mm shells, 2 - 254-mm shells, 9 - 203-mm shells, 39 - 152-mm shells and 21 - smaller shells. According to V.P. Kostenko, there were at least 140 hits, of which 42 - 305 mm shells. After the battle, a ship with a mortally wounded commander who lost a significant part of combat readiness joined the detachment of Rear Admiral N.I. Nebogatov and was taken prisoner together with other ships of this detachment"- losses amounted to 41 people killed, 87 wounded. This is despite the fact that the crew was 806 people.
      1. adept666
        adept666 18 December 2015 12: 57 New
        +5
        Of these, 5-305 mm shells ...
        A modern ship of almost any size would have been completely destroyed and would have dragged 80% of its crew to the bottom ...
      2. remy
        remy 18 December 2015 13: 43 New
        +1
        but for me here is a new concept to my liking. - check it out!
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 18 December 2015 13: 58 New
          +3
          Curious. Although parking of aircraft on both sides of GDP is not a good idea. One mistake of the landing pilot and losses can be counted.
      3. Chiropractor
        Chiropractor 18 December 2015 15: 46 New
        +2
        140 hits of very high-explosive Japanese chimose shells that exploded from falling into the rails - this is one thing, it's like a flamethrower jet ...
        but the hit of our squadron with unexploded wet pyroxylin is another, it’s poking with a screwdriver ...

        there are 2 extremes ....
  4. podgornovea
    podgornovea 18 December 2015 07: 28 New
    +3
    "Six tons of an explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the sky and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid." I understand that for a catchphrase I don't feel sorry for my father, but you need to know when to stop! So you can write that this "explosive substance and powerful explosive" is enough for the Crimea to break away and drown in the Black Sea! :)
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 18 December 2015 08: 37 New
      16
      Quote: podgornovea
      Six tons of explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the firmament and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid.

      The author of the article apparently simply does not know that on June 30.06.1942, 2, in Sevastopol, the Special Combine No. 500 (in the Inkerman area) was blown up before it went out of business. About 500 wagons of ammunition detonated (XNUMX is a controversial figure and not all ammunition exploded, but it speaks of the approximate amount of explosives). The explosion changed the terrain, part of the mountain in which the plant was located - evaporated. The artillery guns of the Germans on the other side of the bay were turned over by a blast wave. However, the firmament did not overturn and the "Sevastopol raid" was not scattered.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 12: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        The author of the article apparently simply does not know that on June 30.06.1942, 2 in Sevastopol the Special Combine No. XNUMX (near Inkerman) was blown up before the suspension.

        Anyone can offend the artist, the article is not about the Sevastopol Bay, although your addition is a very interesting moment of the Second World War.
  5. Mik13
    Mik13 18 December 2015 07: 37 New
    +8
    In total, in two drum stores of the Volna aft air defense system there were 15 B-600 anti-aircraft missiles. And this is serious. The first stage of the rocket consisted of a solid propellant accelerator PRD-36 equipped with 14 cylindrical powder bombs, total weight 280 kg. The second stage was directly a rocket made according to the aerodynamic scheme “duck” with a solid fuel engine containing 125 kg of solid powder. The warhead is a high-explosive fragmentation type, with ready-to-use striking elements. The total weight of the warhead was 60 kg, of which 32 kg is an alloy of TNT with RDX, the rest is fragments.
    Six tons of explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the firmament and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid.

    It is curious how the results of the devastating explosions on the "Mikume" and "Brave" are consistent with the results of tests of modern anti-ship missiles?
    How do their relatively light warheads, the content by mass is ten times less explosive, cause such terrible destruction to ships?


    I don’t know what the Japanese have, and in the case of Valiant, the charge calculation is incorrect.
    If one of the engines ignites, it is most likely that the compartment will be opened by pressure, after which this very pressure will scatter the remaining rockets in the surrounding reality and they will burn (if they are) already outside. Since each solid propellant rocket motor has its own case, it would be correct to consider the mass of charge as the mass of one solid rocket motor. This situation is fundamentally different even from the situation if all available gunpowder burned out simultaneously. By the way, warhead missiles in this case do not detonate, respectively, we have explosive combustion even without detonation - which is also important.

    The relatively light warhead of a modern rocket would have killed Valiant as effectively as the target.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 December 2015 11: 08 New
      +6
      Quote: Mik13
      If one of the engines ignites, it is most likely that the compartment will be opened by pressure, after which this very pressure will scatter the remaining rockets in the surrounding reality and they will burn (if they are) already outside.

      On the Brave, the compartment was opened only after the engines of several missiles were started.
      At 9.58 on the bridge, they felt a slight concussion of the ship, as if a small explosion had occurred in the stern. The cars stopped immediately and immediately played combat and emergency alarms. After 10 seconds, after a second, stronger shock, a cap of white smoke and a sheaf of flame appeared behind the aft chimney. After another 20 seconds, a strong third explosion occurred in the area of ​​rocket cellar No. 8, over which a column of fire and black smoke rose. The force of the explosion tore off the cellar lid and, together with the anti-aircraft missile launcher, threw it onto the starboard aft chimney. A strong fire started in this area. The personnel began the struggle for survivability and unsinkability of the ship.

      As it turned out later, the flame in the cellar appeared due to the spontaneous start of the main engine of one rocket, then the rocket engine of its own launch stage and the subsequent launch of several starting engines of other rockets. Due to the sharp increase in pressure in the cellar (about three atmospheres), a force of at least 2500 t acted on the roof of the cellar, which was the reason for its explosion and detachment of the roof. As a result of the explosion, two holes were formed in the side skin in the cellar area, through which water flooded several compartments of the ship.

      The frequency response, as field tests showed, if the midshipman who was behind the remote control of the rocket control post of feed cellar No. 8 didn’t run away and turned on the fire extinguishing system, the BOD could have been saved.
      The standard means of fire and explosion protection of the cellars of the Volna and Volna-M air defense missile systems have the required efficiency and high reliability. In the event of operation of the cruise or launch engine of the missiles, they prevent the development of an accident that poses a danger to the ship as a whole, and ensure the localization of the emergency process within the cellar without causing significant damage to the equipment. " pressure release within 1-2 seconds.
    2. Riv
      Riv 18 December 2015 11: 39 New
      +8
      I will join. Ignition of fuel in a rocket is by no means a guarantee of detonation of explosives in a warhead. This did not happen on "Brave". The pressure of the gases formed during the combustion of gunpowder tore off the cellar lid. At the same time, cracks formed in the body. The rockets thrown out by the explosion burned out in the air and on the water. There is no mention of a single warhead detonated.

      The author is also not very logical about Mikumu. Firstly: he has no idea how vulnerable the condensate system of a steam boiler can be and how difficult it is to regulate. It is enough for a fragment of a bomb to break a single tube with a diameter of 15 millimeters - and this will lead to an emergency stop of the car. A torn off compartment is nonsense compared to damage to the regulation system. The team cannot do anything until the damage is repaired, and it still needs to be found.
      Secondly: who said that it was the torpedoes that detonated? What, could not some bomb not explode immediately? Could. Moreover, the torpedoes would definitely blow the cruiser to pieces. Yes, and their shells were on the cruiser.
      Third: why does he think that Mikuma's team was stupider than his sister's team? In fact, since the days of the first ships armed with artillery, the first rule in case of fire: "Protect the cruise chamber." If you can't protect, flood. If it is impossible to flood - the gunpowder overboard. This is in all naval regulations and manuals. So why did one cruiser think of throwing torpedoes overboard, while the other did not? They probably did so.

      Well, half a ton of explosives is not enough for the firmament to tip over. :)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 December 2015 13: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: Riv
        Secondly: who said that it was the torpedoes that detonated? What, could not some bomb not explode immediately?

        It is very difficult to achieve such destruction in the explosion of one bomb:
        The entire superstructure of the cruiser from the enclosure of the chimneys KO to the tower GK number 4 turned into a pile of debris, which was crowned by the collapsed top of the foremast. Worse, the force of the explosion was such that the double bottom in the aft MO of the port side was also destroyed, and the ship began to receive water. Quickly appeared and began to grow left roll.

        Quote: Riv
        Third: why does he think that Mikuma's team was stupider than his sister's team? In fact, since the days of the first ships armed with artillery, the first rule in case of fire: "Protect the cruise chamber." If you can't protect, flood. If it is impossible to flood - the gunpowder overboard. This is in all naval regulations and manuals. So why did one cruiser think of throwing torpedoes overboard, while the other did not? They probably did so.

        Probably because the dumping of torpedoes on the Mogami had nothing to do with the air raids. They were thrown out long before that - as a result of a night collision with Mikumi.
        Fortunately for the ship, even at night after the collision, the commander of the Mogami survivability division captain of the 3rd rank Masayushi Saruvatari ordered, with the permission of the cruiser commander, captain of the 1st rank Akir Soji, to throw “all combustible materials” overboard. Including ... all 24 of the long-lance cruiser!

        In addition, after the raid on the Mikumi, the crew of this MRT had no chance of dropping torpedoes.
        Both 454-kg bombs pierced the deck and exploded in the aft engine room on the port side with a “terrifying roar”. A huge flame flared up next to the torpedo tubes on the port side. Starting to lose speed after the second and third hits, the ship stopped.
        1. Riv
          Riv 18 December 2015 14: 50 New
          +1
          Why was there no chance? And again: who said that the torpedoes were not thrown out after all? No gigantic destruction is visible in the starting photo. Crumpled, yes, but even the wreckage of the plane from the tower did not dare. The add-in is not badly damaged.
          You can even say with confidence: boilers still operate on the cruiser. The white clouds on the port side are not smoke. This is steam. And since it is rather thick, then the steam lines are still under pressure.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 18 December 2015 18: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Riv
            Why was there no chance?

            Do not tell me - how to throw torpedoes from torpedo tubes located in the fire zone? Oxygen torpedoes ...
            Quote: Riv
            No giant destruction on the starting photo is not visible. Distorted, yes, but even the wreckage of the aircraft from the tower is not bold. The add-in is not so badly damaged.

            Seriously?
            Here is the cruiser "Mikuma" in general condition:

            And here - after the explosion:

            1. Riv
              Riv 19 December 2015 05: 32 New
              0
              Well, I don’t know how to throw torpedoes overboard. Probably with pens. They themselves will not jump out.
              The ship is damaged, yes. So what? Even the chimney resisted. Somehow weakly ten torpedoes exploded.
  6. Maegrom
    Maegrom 18 December 2015 07: 39 New
    +4
    Is Bold Valiant BOD armored? The effect is the same, this article does not provide arguments in a long-standing local dispute.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 18 December 2015 07: 59 New
      +5
      No, not armored.
      On August 30 of 1974, on a large anti-submarine ship “The Brave” of the Black Sea Fleet, which entered the combat training area, in 45 km west of Sevastopol, a series of explosions occurred in 10.00-10.02 in the aft cellar of anti-aircraft missiles, and a big fire broke out. As a result of holes in the hull, the ship received 1600 tons of sea water, tipped to the starboard side at 12-14 ° and received trim on the stern of the 2,5 m.

      The measures taken by the personnel of the ship and emergency rescue vessels, the spread of the fire in the bow was suspended, and the ship was towed to the shore. In the stern of the ship, where the personnel could not penetrate the fire, the fire continued to spread and in 14.47 caused an explosion in the cellar with anti-submarine bombs and presumably storage with 5 tons of aviation kerosene. As a result of this explosion, the ship took an additional 1900 tons of sea water, the bank reached 27 ° and the trim on the stern 6,5 m.
      In the 15.57, the ship “Brave” sank in 40 km from Sevastopol at a depth of 122 m.
      Of the 287 people on the ship, 263 people were saved and 24 people were killed.
      Under the circumstances, a series of explosions and a big fire did not seem to save the ship.

      These are excerpts from the report. Would it be armored? It would be absolutely the same.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 14: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        No, not armored.

        The article is not so much about booking as about the impact of the explosion under the bottom of the ship.
        On May 2, 1982, at 15 hours 57 minutes, the Konkoror submarine launched three torpedoes, two of which hit General Belgrano. It is believed that the bulk of the deaths of crew members occurred as a result of the explosion of one of the torpedoes. There was no fire, but the cruiser was de-energized. At 16 hours and 24 minutes, the Argentine captain Hector Bonso ordered the crew to leave the ship.

        Two torpedoes in a relatively good armored ship, 25 minutes and the captain orders to leave the ship, and as it turned out late, more than 300 sailors sank.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 December 2015 16: 48 New
          +1
          You look at the article, it is about one thing, and the conclusions that the well-known author is trying to draw are completely different. This is my misfortune.
  7. Ilya77
    Ilya77 18 December 2015 07: 40 New
    14
    Face when you read the 100500 series of armored doctor.
  8. timyr
    timyr 18 December 2015 08: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: podgornovea
    "Six tons of an explosive substance and half a ton of the most powerful explosives! Such an explosion could be enough to overturn the sky and disperse the entire Sevastopol raid." I understand that for a catchphrase I don't feel sorry for my father, but you need to know when to stop! So you can write that this "explosive substance and powerful explosive" is enough for the Crimea to break away and drown in the Black Sea! :)

    So he broke away, though only in 2014
    1. Nikita Dmitriev
      Nikita Dmitriev 18 December 2015 08: 31 New
      +4
      Tired of ... honestly. You, Oleg, don’t hear the arguments of other readers, and everyone is trying to pull real armor over the ears of the ship. There’s nothing much to discuss. Everything has already been said in the comments on your previous articles.
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 18 December 2015 08: 55 New
        -7
        Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
        You, Oleg, do not hear the arguments of other readers

        Interestingly, but do you personally have them? Besides "tired"
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 December 2015 13: 11 New
          +2
          Found a new one?
  9. Bennert
    Bennert 18 December 2015 08: 48 New
    +4
    It is curious how the results of the devastating explosions on the "Mikume" and "Brave" are consistent with the results of tests of modern anti-ship missiles?

    How their relatively light warheads, their mass content is tens of times less than explosives, cause such terrible destruction to ships?

    Very simple way

    An epic scene with an explosion of a fuel truck was shot on a table, a toy car was used instead of a fuel truck

    Much like the Terminator movie, the videos featured in the article do not say anything about scale. For example, the first video is mistakenly titled "Mosquito". This is not a Mosquito, this is the firing of a much larger and heavier Vulcan from the Varyag cruiser. What is surprising about the fact that two 5-ton supersonic colossus pierced the tin barge through? Tearing out part of the structures and scattering part of the debris over the adjacent water area, with numerous beautiful splashes.

    The second photo - NSM hitting the decommissioned frigate "Trondheim" (1966), which corresponds in size to the MRC "Veliky Ustyug".
    So what is surprising in the fact that a 400-kg rocket demolished part of the superstructure of this small patrol ship? The thickness of the lining and decking is 6 mm, no protection is out of the question. The midship is 11 meters wide, twice the modern destroyer.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 18 December 2015 12: 24 New
      0
      Quote: BENNERT
      The second photo - NSM hitting the decommissioned frigate "Trondheim" (1966), which corresponds in size to the MRC "Veliky Ustyug".

      And I kept thinking that the article was about the explosion under the ship and on the ship, and what is the difference, but it turns out to be about armor.
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 18 December 2015 22: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        And I kept thinking that the article was about the explosion under the ship and on the ship, and what is the difference, but it turns out to be about armor.

        There are initially two paradoxes:
        Mikuma afloat after a powerful explosion, like Brave
        Mogami returns to base at 20 knots, after 5 direct hits of air bombs

        And the last question about comparing the effects of the Long Lance and RCC explosions is also of interest
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 December 2015 12: 45 New
      +1
      Yes. and the funniest thing is that despite the impressive explosion and the absence of a struggle for survivability as such, the ship obviously does not have a tendency to flood, and if there was an initial opportunity it would also most likely go to base on its own. And this is far from a cruiser.
  10. pimen
    pimen 18 December 2015 08: 50 New
    +5
    in my opinion, Oleg needs to compose something like a table, with his theses and the most reasoned objections, but because of the variable composition of the participants in the discussion, the arguments, counterarguments and abuse are going around in circles
  11. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 18 December 2015 09: 02 New
    +1
    The point in this dispute can only be set by war. Only she can confirm or refute the prevailing views in shipbuilding, according to which armor is considered an excess. Nevertheless, given that the cost of armor compared to the filling of the ship is not so big, I think at least some kind of armor is better than its complete absence.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 December 2015 09: 11 New
      +1
      The war will set the point only with the participation in the hostilities of at least one armored ship, and a tendency to this is not visible. How else do shipbuilders not think about satisfying our fantasies !?
  12. kirpich
    kirpich 18 December 2015 09: 31 New
    0
    "Mosquito" ... The Yankees did not run into our "Granite".
  13. Hort
    Hort 18 December 2015 09: 39 New
    +5
    Quote: Ilya77
    armored doctor.

    great name for the heading! : D
  14. shurup
    shurup 18 December 2015 10: 41 New
    +2
    Perhaps the author is lobbying for the interests of metallurgists who now have global sales problems? And then a large long-term state order for armor shines. But public opinion must be prepared for the need to open budget pockets.
    I am sorry for the unfortunate Japanese cruiser, whose bombs did not hit the deck, but he died anyway. The author gave an unsuccessful example.
    I'm more interested in where is the mathematical modeling and the results of further field tests of the effects of existing and prospective RCC on the compartment of a modern ship? I do not observe them, because there are already tests of a hypersonic rocket.
    I believe that the protection problem should be resolved by destroying the anti-ship missiles before launch.
    The president said that if fights cannot be avoided, then hit first.
  15. 8 inches
    8 inches 18 December 2015 11: 01 New
    +4
    but still curious. that means they could withstand 5 hits by 500 pounds in the 35mm deck and survived. and in the Cretan operation, the Fiji cruiser received 3 hits of 50 kg with bombs from Messer and drowned. although the deck was 51 mm ... I don’t understand anything, it means 227 kg the bomb doesn’t break through but 50kg made it easy.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 18 December 2015 11: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: 8 inches
      and in the Cretan operation, the Fiji cruiser received 3 hits of 50 kg with bombs from Messer and drowned.

      Are you sure 50 kg?

      consumed all of its anti-aircraft ammunition fighting off numerous air attacks that persisted for two hours. She was attacked and hit several bombs from Messerschmitt Bf 109 in front of the Jagdgeschwader 77 aircraft dropped a bomb next to port side. The explosion blew up several Fiji bottom slabs and caused a roll. She was now largely defenseless, having almost exhausted her 4-inch ammunition. She then hit three bombs dropped in the Junkers Ju 88 from Lehrgeschwader 1 manned by Gerhard Brenner. Captain William Peveril-Powlett gave the order to leave the ship
      (Google Translate)
      1. 8 inches
        8 inches 18 December 2015 11: 16 New
        +1
        as far as I know, on the contrary, at first the u88 dropped a bomb near the ship, which caused flooding of a number of compartments. it was the Messer 3 50 kg that drowned it, and that the ammunition was so depleted that there was nothing to drive off one plane? I don’t believe. the maximum that ju88 could drop it 500kg and even next to the ship. maybe he still played the motto, the king has a lot?
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 December 2015 11: 01 New
    +3
    Even with the naked eye it can be seen that there is a logical inconsistency in the description. Heroic hour and a half standing under continuous attacks of American aircraft. What did the Japanese reap? Wanted to take a look at the fireworks? When torpedoes explode on a burning immobilized cruiser.

    The Japanese were waiting for Mikuma to move. Or while Mogami takes Mikum in tow.
    Captain 1st rank Soji did not rule out that he would be able to tow the Mikum - if only her team, led by Takashima, could deal with the fires. At 13.50, Takashima got information that the f / s in the intact MO (bow of the port side and the stern of the starboard side) was close to giving a move.

    And the Mikuma could have gone ... if not for its own torpedoes. But not all, but only in the TA and the cellar on the port side.
    However, at 13.58, the worst happened - several “Type 93” torpedoes exploded in the cellar and port side vehicles from the fire. The entire superstructure of the cruiser from the enclosure of the chimneys KO to the tower GK number 4 turned into a pile of debris, which was crowned by the collapsed top of the foremast. Worse, the force of the explosion was such that the double bottom in the aft MO of the port side was also destroyed, and the ship began to receive water. Quickly appeared and began to grow left roll. Fires now swept all add-ons. At 14.20 p.m., the Mogami commander Akira Soji informed Yamamoto by telegram that "Mikum was apparently finished." Almost the same opinion was shared by Takashima himself, who ordered to prepare to leave the ship. Soon, such an order was followed.

    One of the laws of the sea war: as soon as a ship loses a turn in a combat zone, a command is immediately removed from it, and the destroyers are killed off the damaged one. The slightest delay threatens the death of the entire squadron. This rule was followed by all naval commanders at all times.

    Um ... and when were the damaged Akagi and Hiryu finished off? Really right after you lost your move?
    I'm not talking about Yorktown ...
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 18 December 2015 11: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The Japanese were waiting for Mikuma to move. Or while Mogami takes Mikum in tow.

      1,5 hours under American bombs?
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Um ... and when were the damaged Akagi and Hiryu finished off?

      10:43 Zero fighters, standing on the starboard side opposite the conning tower, caught fire and began to explode. These explosions disrupted Akagi’s radio communications with other squadron ships.

      At 10:46, Nagumo and his staff left the ship. Around 11:35 a detonated warehouse of aircraft torpedoes and an artillery cell on an aircraft carrier tank. The evacuation of the wounded on the cruiser "Nagara" was completed by 11:30. The crew of the ship made every effort to localize the fires, but gradually it became clear that the fire was getting out of control. At 18:00, Captain 1st Rank Taijiro Aoki, assessing the number of dead and wounded and the prevalence of the fire, ordered the team to leave the ship. At 19:20 p.m., Captain 1st Rank Aoki sent Vice Admiral Nagumo a radiogram asking Finish the doomed ship. On June 5, 1942 at 3:50 am, Yamamoto ordered the agonizing aircraft carrier to be flooded.


      why they were in no hurry to finish off Akagi - there was no longer any special need for that. The forces of the Americans ran out, the attacks stopped
      Quote: Alexey RA
      I'm not talking about Yorktown ...

      Yorktown was towed in the absence of the enemy, the parties completely exhausted their forces, by then Midway had ceased to be a war zone
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 December 2015 11: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: BENNERT
        1,5 hours under American bombs?
        What are an hour and a half under the bombs?
        At 13:15, the attack of Short's combined group from the Enterprise ended. The Yankees flew away. It was only at 14:45 that the attack of Tucker and Rodi's groups from the Hornet began. One and a half hour respite.
        Quote: BENNERT
        At 10:46, Nagumo and his staff left the ship. Around 11:35 a detonated warehouse of aircraft torpedoes and an artillery cell on an aircraft carrier tank. The evacuation of the wounded on the cruiser "Nagara" was completed by 11:30. The crew of the ship made every effort to localize the fires, but gradually it became clear that the fire was getting out of control. At 18:00, Captain 1st Rank Taijiro Aoki, assessing the number of dead and wounded and the prevalence of the fire, ordered the team to leave the ship. At 19:20 p.m., Captain 1st Rank Aoki sent Vice Admiral Nagumo a radiogram asking him to finish off the doomed ship. On June 5, 1942 at 3:50 am, Yamamoto ordered the agonizing aircraft carrier to be flooded.

        why they were in no hurry to finish off Akagi - there was no longer any special need for that. The forces of the Americans ran out, the attacks stopped
        Heh heh heh ... are you really exhausted? But intelligence reported Nagumo completely different:
        ... at 18.30 the headquarters of the 8th cruisers division, having analyzed three reports from E13A1 No. 2 with the Tikuma SRT (E8N2), came to the conclusion that the forces of the Americans consist of 4 aircraft carriers, 6 cruisers and 15 destroyers, in addition, they move westward in pursuit of the retreating forces of Kido Butai.

        This made a very depressing impression. Nagumo's headquarters believed (as is clear from the subsequent exchange with Yamato) that two of them were Yorktown class ships, and two were of an unidentified class, but supposedly auxiliary aircraft carriers. And all of them, in a strong escort, marched west, according to the headquarters of the 8th division on the flagship Tone.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Namba Six
    Namba Six 18 December 2015 12: 07 New
    -3
    Quote: BENNERT
    NATO countries have multi-ton supersonic anti-ship missiles?

    What for?! Mosquitoes and Volcanoes and other "fast" anti-ship missiles ceased to be super-weapons with the emergence of the latest modifications of NATO SM-type anti-aircraft missiles. Judging by tests on supersonic low-flying targets, 1-2 SMs can confidently intercept such anti-ship missiles. So it is better to launch fifty X-35s into the AUG (according to the law of large numbers, some of them will not be able to intercept air defense systems for sure) than 16 Volcanoes or 8 Mosquitoes, whose chances of flying will be minimized.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 18 December 2015 13: 17 New
      0
      Multi-ton torpedoes that appeared a long time ago, they also intercept?
    2. adept666
      adept666 18 December 2015 13: 19 New
      +2
      other "fast" anti-ship missiles ceased to be super-weapons with the emergence of the latest modifications of NATO SM-type anti-aircraft missiles.
      Seriously? smile
      1-2 SMki confidently intercept such RCC.

      What did they intercept there? A coyote walking along an aerobalistic trajectory without maneuvering and even in a parallel course to an air defense ship, and at the same time, the calculation knew where and at what time they would launch it? laughing
      chances to fly which will be minimized.
      I wish I could look at your confidence when you were not sitting on the couch, but would be the target of a pair of mosquitoes reaching your destroyer equipped with the praised IJIS lol They would surely learn how to shoot down a single subsonic target of the BQM-74 type (which did not follow a parallel course), otherwise they would like 8 mosquitoes like nuts laughing The teeth will break ...
  19. Taoist
    Taoist 18 December 2015 13: 56 New
    +3
    No, it’s just right to write a complaint to livestock protectors ... Where does such hatred for owls come from? Well, this bird does not fit with the globe ... But no, we are still trying to pull it.

    This time, an attempt to compare the explosion of ammunition with an anti-ship missile hit. Those. the author does not see the difference with the regular and "abnormal" operation of the ammunition ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 18 December 2015 14: 02 New
      0
      Well, the cellar is kind of protected by fire safety systems, shatterproof bulkheads, etc. So there is always a chance to get out with minimal losses. But where the RCC will fly and at what angle ... you can’t guess.
  20. spech
    spech 18 December 2015 13: 58 New
    +2
    Although I do not always agree with Oleg, it’s a plus for an interesting story.
  21. Glad
    Glad 18 December 2015 14: 31 New
    +8
    Hmm ... With all due respect to the Author of the article, I don't quite understand what he wants to prove. Well, yes, there are two facts. The Mikumo and the Brave exploded a lot before they sank.
    But "Sheffield" sank because of a fire, which was caused by the remnants of the fuel of the same anti-ship missile system, which, once hit, did not even explode (more precisely, the warhead did not work normally). Our "Monsoon" sank as a result of being hit by a target rocket, which was generally carried in inert equipment. So what? What does this prove? The fact that when a certain amount of explosives or fuel detonates, explodes or burns inside the ship, events can develop in different ways? So it is clear by definition. What armor is good? So from the examples it can be seen that the armor did little to help Mikumo. Here, rather, there is more evidence in favor of the fact that it is impossible to allow any ammunition to hit the ship, regardless of whether it is wearing armor or not. And this result can only be achieved by using active means of defense ...
    In general, it’s strange somehow ...
  22. Selevc
    Selevc 18 December 2015 14: 38 New
    +2
    I think that Oleg should get acquainted with some kind of grandfather (retired naval officer of the USSR) who in his youth was on the tests of the first generations of anti-ship missiles !!! And as they say firsthand to hear about the results of RCC tests !!! And do not philosophize on this subject endlessly !!!
    For decades, armored veterans of the 2nd World War era were used as targets for anti-ship missiles ... And I will never believe that anti-ship missiles were adopted without guaranteed technical characteristics - including armor penetration ... Any project in the defense industry It is considered successful if the product fully complies with the parameters that were laid in it during the design ... And for RCC, the main indicators are the destruction of the target or causing serious damage to it !!!
    And why did the whole world simultaneously refuse to reserve a surface fleet ??? Even conservatives such as Britain, for example, have also taken this path !!! The answer is obvious - to create a rocket or a torpedo piercing even the thickest armor is tens and hundreds of thousands of times cheaper than building an armored ship - guaranteed invulnerable to RCC !!!

    And in general, the very question of whether the armored ship breaks through an armored ship or not is not entirely important ... A much more important question is what survivability of modern warships in a serious battle?
  23. Glad
    Glad 18 December 2015 16: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: Selevc
    to create a rocket or torpedo penetrating even the thickest armor is tens and hundreds of thousands of times cheaper than building an armored ship - guaranteed invulnerable to anti-ship missiles !!!

    Exactly. If five people are going to beat you, it’s better to be with a gun than in body armor.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 December 2015 16: 57 New
      +1
      The only subtlety is the presence of armored ships in the fleet, forcing all potential opponents to take into account the meeting with these representatives of the enemy. A few armored ships instead of unarmored ones will not be more expensive than a complete re-equipment of the fleet with new type of missiles.
      Another thing is that now it’s not the main thing to sink a ship — missiles are not capable of using this with properly organized passive and active fire protection. What shows the result of using a rocket against a small unarmored frigate. But to bring to a state in which the ship cannot use modern weapons and air defense systems is still easier. It is enough to stick out the cyclops of the eyes.
  24. Glad
    Glad 18 December 2015 18: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Maegrom
    A few armored ships instead of unarmored ones will not be more expensive than a complete re-equipment of the fleet with new type of missiles.

    Why missiles of a new type? It is enough to change the old warheads. Missiles with old warheads will be spent in combat training, new ones will come from industry. This is at its peak. If you cannot collect what you have, take it to the plant and modernize it. Moreover, this will be done long before the entry of the first "battleship" into operation.
    So, the additional costs are minimal.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  25. moskowit
    moskowit 18 December 2015 19: 10 New
    -1
    Again controversy, leading into the "jungle" completely unrelated to the topic. My friends, let me bring you back to reality. You noticed one sentence ...

    "... The only bright event was the death ram: the downed plane of Dick Fleming repeated the feat of Gastello, ramming the Mikum TKR (the wreckage of the plane can be seen on the title picture, on the roof of the fifth main turret). .."

    See how MAN. fought against fascism! With injustice, with what humiliation, slavery and superiority of the victorious nations carried to man. Such feats were performed by people of different nationalities. It would be nice to read an article about this.
  26. dummy
    dummy 18 December 2015 20: 30 New
    -2
    Well, again Kaptsov proves to the whole world that a knight in armor is better than any special forces. Because it’s armored! After all, that's why mattresses do not cut their battleships, but turned them into museums. They know that from the aliens the IJIS with missiles will not help, only the battleships will be the salvation. And they will not destroy the Russian Armed Forces with missiles, but with bribery, but with sanctions.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 18 December 2015 21: 44 New
      +3
      Quote: Dummy
      Because it’s armored

      The spetsnaz is also "booked". Not like a knight, of course, a helmet with an armor, knee pads and elbow pads is also armor.
      Outfit WarriorOutfit Warrior
  27. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 18 December 2015 21: 45 New
    0
    I also want to note amateurish note.
    The hit of 2 Mosquito anti-ship missiles on the ship in the first video looked great. However, in slow motion I noticed:
    1-I rocket ricocheted off the side. Accordingly, the explosion of the warhead occurred near the side of the ship.
    2-th rocket flew through the ship through from nose to ... And along the way it blew up everyone and everything.
    Was he empty, this target ship? And as the rocket moved, what was exploding inside?
    In my opinion, this is a staged promo video. Advertising s.
  28. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 18 December 2015 23: 42 New
    +1
    The article is good!
  29. Glad
    Glad 19 December 2015 05: 19 New
    0
    Quote: CERHJ
    And who will let them in such numbers to the AB or the cruiser?

    You can't argue with that, of course. Moreover, "Petra" without "Kuznetsov" will not allow anyone to approach the aircraft carrier at the launch range of "Granites" ...
    But ...
    In theory, the Argentines should not have drowned British ships with unguided bombs on Skyhawks. They shouldn't. Moreover, they acted at the limit of the radius (i.e. the British knew where they would come from). However, they drowned ...
    All in all, AJIS is, of course, good. Who would argue. But in real life, anything can happen ...
  30. barbiturate
    barbiturate 19 December 2015 11: 17 New
    0
    Plus, I am also a supporter of ship reservations, and ship designers also understand this very well and tried to drag armor to the ships and drag them as best they could.
  31. moskowit
    moskowit 19 December 2015 12: 27 New
    +1
    I do not understand. It turns out that the feat of Dick Fleming did not cause any emotions in anyone except the minus. And I was waiting for additional information on this from true experts in military history and military affairs. To my great regret, I have to descend to the "mortal earth". This means that it will be necessary to spend time expanding knowledge on this issue. It's a pity nobody helped ...
  32. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 19 December 2015 14: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: CERHJ
    Well, it’s fair to say that it’s everywhere not the same thickness. So, the proposal to reserve compartments with important nodes and systems is reasonable.

    Serega hello drinks
    I think you're wrong here. How much does the warhead weigh for the same, say Granite? From 500 to 750 kg ... The question arises, what kind of armor can withstand the hit (I take the average number) of 600 kg of explosives flying at the same time in excess of sound (and in the nearest perspective and hyper sound)?
    I believe that the "armor" should be different ... these are electronic warfare systems, interceptor missiles, rapid-fire cannons, etc. ... plus early warning radars. Before you notice the enemy, you will be the first to open fire.

    And you can find out how likely the enemy is to run into the PCR Granite, which is everywhere in the debate on the issue of booking, given the "huge" number of carriers of this weapon? Granites were intended for AUG, for the GUARANTEED destruction of which a volley of 30-40 missiles was required (for such a volley you need two Peter the Great or three Kuzi smile) It seems to me that if in the near future, if there is a need for "heavy" armoring of ships, the problem will be solved with the most common anti-ship missiles, which have performance characteristics much more modest than Granites. For example, take and compare sea shells of 14 "-16" caliber (weight 590-1240 kg, maximum firing range speed 350-450 m / s) with "average" anti-ship missiles (weight 400- 800kg, speed 0,8-1M) - it is clear that the characteristics are very similar and experts have known the solution to the problem since the WWII. I would also like to note that the weight of a warhead in a missile is not the weight of explosives - depending on the purpose of the warhead (high-explosive, penetrating), the weight of the explosive is 0,5-0,7 of the weight of the warhead.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 19 December 2015 14: 48 New
      -2
      More than one ... Its caliber is greater than that of the Dora cannon, and its weight is approximately the same as that of the bottom battleship "Novorossiysk" sunk in the parking lot.
  33. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 20 December 2015 15: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    More than one ... Its caliber is greater than that of the Dora cannon, and its weight is approximately the same as that of the bottom battleship "Novorossiysk" sunk in the parking lot.

    Dear, did I say the opposite in my answer?
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 December 2015 15: 52 New
      0
      In general, yes - from somewhere they took up to forty of them in a salvo.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 21 December 2015 22: 39 New
        0
        On the Internet, in the public domain, there are methodological calculations of Soviet military analysts regarding a massive missile attack on the AUG (period of the 80s). Granitov "from the submarine pr4 with a very high probability was destroyed by the countermeasures of air defense and electronic warfare AUG. That's what a volley of missiles of 6 was needed. Or do you think that the missile fired = the hit missile?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 22 December 2015 09: 40 New
          0
          Different newspapers wrote different things ... They are not secret and therefore true?
          "Basalts" were limited in a salvo from 16 to 8 so that the AUG had a good chance of completely intercepting everyone in a salvo
          If without the SBS at the side, then at first, if desired, a cluster anti-ship missile or an aeroballistic missile in the form of an anti-artillery ammunition or a heavy anti-aircraft missile of the S-200 type is undermined above the deck, after which a real "holiday" begins, and then AV simply gets a diving anti-ship missile under the keel which breaks its hull in half ...
  34. archimer
    archimer 20 December 2015 21: 58 New
    0
    What would the best aces of the USSR answer!
  35. Litsvin
    Litsvin 20 December 2015 23: 31 New
    +2
    Yes, the Soviet newspapers did not write about the poor fellow "Otvazhny". From all "involved" were taken away "subscriptions". In other fleets, many learned about this tragedy many years later. The dead there were not 19, but many more.
    As for internal explosions in ships, the damage depends not only on the medium (water or air), but, in many ways, on the ship's structure, primarily on the "power set" of the hull, the thickness of the steel, the methods of its fastening (welding, riveting) ... The power of the explosion will always follow the path of least resistance, in other directions the deformation of the case will be, if I may say so, "secondary", i.e. depend on the above factors. With "Miguma" we see what? The explosion tore out the "thin" iron at the top, leaving the powerful onboard "iron in place." In addition, the ship did not receive critical damage to the underwater part of the hull precisely because the epicenter of the explosion was high in the ship's hull. If the torpedoes were in the main cellars at the very double bottom, then the explosion energy would have to pierce several decks upwards, which does not correspond to the principle "it breaks where thinner". The energy would "pass" for the most part through the "thin" iron of the double bottom, mostly down and make one huge hole in the underwater part of the ship. Would have sunk in a couple of minutes ...
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. Litsvin
    Litsvin 21 December 2015 01: 04 New
    +3
    Now, as a former sailor-"operator" I will try to answer on the topic "Ships booking - classic and modern". Friends, "book theorists", believe me, those who build ships are SMART PEOPLE !!! You don't even realize how smart they are. Even we, sailors (ie "operators" of ships), cannot always immediately understand the genius of designers.
    Yes, the armor "warms the soul", instills such a sense of security. But this is 30% true, the remaining 70% is an illusion. Why? Yes, because the level of development of means of destruction of ships went 5 generations ahead of the "Makarov tip" and "shimosa". Yes, you can create an ultra-modern cruiser or missile battleship, covered with modern, high-quality homogeneous "a la the last word of grandfather Krupp" 500mm armor. So what? This armor will be "gnawed by a conventional anti-tank grenade launcher." So? So.
    Move on. In order not to gnaw through the "ordinary grenade launcher", you need to hang active dynamic protection and multi-layer combined armor on the ship. So? So. This is where the answer to the question is whether armor is needed or not. The answer is in the AREA of ECONOMY. Such booking of a large ship made of homogeneous armor steel, multilayer composite armor and active means of protection - by the type of tank booking - is no longer 10% of the cost of the ship, as many "ignorant" write, but 50% or even 100% more. These are completely different numbers in arithmetic. The ship will be "golden"!
    Many will argue, why do you have to make sandwich armor based on modern alloys, ceramics and dynamic protection? Yes, because you want to protect the ship and protect it reliably, otherwise what's the point in armor. So? So. And those who will make a means of destruction already for an armored ship will make a small penny revision of anti-ship missiles - they will simply install a tandem warhead on the rocket - the first is cumulative, the second is blasting. That's all. The price of the issue is a penny. Just like on conventional modern anti-tank grenade launchers. Homogeneous booking, even in 500 mm, the ship will not save - the cumulative jet will destroy the integrity of the armor plates, the blasting part will cause powerful detonation, destruction of the inner hull elements, fire, deformation of the ship's structural elements, dynamic impact, damaging mechanisms and electronics. The result is that both an unarmored ship and an armored ship with homogeneous armor will be severely damaged and incapacitated. I admit that the armored ship, due to its stronger structure, will be damaged less, but still critical. Modern ships are not the ones that were under Tsushima or Jutland. Now they are crammed with delicate "electronics", for which a "successful sneeze" is enough to fail. As a result, the "cheap" unarmored cruiser will be lost and the expensive "armored" cruiser will also be lost.
    If you book as I described above - "ON CONSCIENCE", then imagine a non-nuclear cruiser according to the combat characteristics of "Peter the Great", hung with homogeneous, ceramic and "active" armor !!! What will be its displacement with a given amount of weapons ??? will be the size of the ship ??? Much larger than the "Peter", because if the "Peter" is booked "conscientiously", as many suggest, it will sink in these dimensions. will carry fuel oil with them, what should be the power of the machines, etc. ??? And the most important thing is ITS COST, which, for some reason, all the "theoreticians who have not seen the sea" forget. And imagine that such ships are needed to build Russia one for each aircraft carrier.There is one "Peter the Great" for how many years the whole world was building, starting back "under Soviet rule."
  40. Litsvin
    Litsvin 21 December 2015 01: 06 New
    +1
    CONTINUED. The same pragmatic Americans why do not build armored sea monsters ??? The answer is simple - they can count money !!! AND ALL !!! The whole question does not rest on iron, but on money. Violation of the "accounting" balance leads to the collapse of the idea. So, for example, the Germans lost our "tank race" - we "riveted" 55 thousand cheap, high-tech T-34s, another 50 thousand riveted "Shermans" in the USA. The Germans "collected" 1354 "correct", high-tech, high-quality "Tigers" with leather seats and "optics that made it possible to hunt woodcock" at the price of 3 T-4Hs. So what? Pooped up. Yes, we lost 30 thousand of our T-34s and our guys, but the remaining 25 thousand took revenge and took Berlin.
    The same thing about booking ships. This is a completed evolutionary stage in military shipbuilding. Everything, that time has passed, and the past has grown. Forget about ARMOR. After all, no one is thinking of returning sailing warships or triple expansion steam engines !!! Of the sane - none. Why then "drag by the ears" armor.
    THE FUTURE OF THE WARSHIPBUILDING "FOR FOUR WHITES":
    1) "INVISIBILITY";
    2) EFFECTIVE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION OF GOALS;
    3) HIGH-PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS OF FIRE DEFEAT OF GOALS USING USUAL ORDINARY BARS;
    4) EFFECTIVE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS OF ACTIVE COUNTERWEIGHT TO WEAPON AN ENEMY.

    All this will be hidden in the combined metal-plastic hull of the ship. The whole battle will be reduced to a simple rule - whoever discovered first, fired first and won !!! There will be no duels - the feat of “Varyag” with “Korean” simply cannot be repeated. This is TECHNICAL progress - nothing more !!! Everything flows, everything changes. I hope that the supporters and opponents of the armor are convinced.
  41. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 21 December 2015 22: 26 New
    -2
    Quote: Litsvin
    The answer is in the AREA of ECONOMY. Such booking of a large ship made of homogeneous armor steel, multilayer composite armor and active means of protection - by the type of tank booking - is no longer 10% of the cost of a ship, as many "uninformed" write, but 50% or even 100% more.

    Do not write nonsense-weapon systems and electronics draws about 50% of the total cost of a warship, and in the tanks you mentioned, the fire control system and surveillance tools easily add up to 30% of the cost of the entire tank. Therefore, do not worry about the sky-high cost of booking.
  42. Litsvin
    Litsvin 22 December 2015 01: 03 New
    0
    Quote: BORMAN82
    Quote: Litsvin
    The answer is in the AREA of ECONOMY. Such booking of a large ship made of homogeneous armor steel, multilayer composite armor and active means of protection - by the type of tank booking - is no longer 10% of the cost of a ship, as many "uninformed" write, but 50% or even 100% more.

    Do not write nonsense-weapon systems and electronics draws about 50% of the total cost of a warship, and in the tanks you mentioned, the fire control system and surveillance tools easily add up to 30% of the cost of the entire tank. Therefore, do not worry about the sky-high cost of booking.

    Have you ever seen a real large warship, to begin with? Nonsense, dear, do not write the name of you. Without carefully reading the text, you draw the most stupid conclusion. I am not writing about homogeneous steel armor, of which there is little sense, but a lot of weight and thickness is needed o-ho to really protect against modern anti-ship missiles, which can be modified "for a penny" by providing a double combined warhead.
    I am writing about modern multilayer armor, which can effectively withstand modern and future weapons of destruction of a ship. And this armor is very expensive. In addition, a modern ship is a miracle of technology stuffed with "delicate" electronics, which can be disabled by one successful hit from an anti-ship missile. The ship will not sink and even keep its course and even retain its ammunition load, but it will be "deaf and blind" and as a result it will be easy prey. How are you going to book the above-deck architecture of the ship - target detection and tracking systems, communication systems, etc. ???
    And how are you going to armor the underwater part of the ship from mine-torpedo weapons, including high-speed missile torpedoes? Well, in your opinion, if you book so book.
    Booking a modern ship is a DEADLINE BRANCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRAIN OF THE SHIPBOARD !!!
    This is the same as now, instead of electric locomotives, use steam locomotives, instead of jet aircraft, they will return to piston aircraft, instead of modern cars, they will return to the 20s of the last century, where they made "iron pots with a wooden floor", and on ships instead of steam turbines, diesels and YR will return to triple expansion sails and steam engines. Dead end and ... oops !!! Sorry for being straightforward.
    In which directions modern military shipbuilding will go, I wrote in red at the top, I will not repeat. Smart - let them see! And they will draw the right conclusions. The rest of the "theoreticians" who have not seen the seas, let them "beat their horns at the open doors", on the side it says "OPEN FOR YOURSELF". You need to knit by the handle, pull and the door will open, and not prove about the need to hang modern ships with armor. Everything, the topic is closed. Thank God, that in our and foreign shipbuilding companies there are reasonable engineers, otherwise I would have put on huge armored "cleavers" that consume a huge amount of fuel, and in terms of combat efficiency they are in no way superior to conventional ships with "side thickness of 5-7 cm." Everything, the topic is closed.
  43. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 22 December 2015 20: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Litsvin
    Well, in your opinion, if you book so book

    Do not attribute to me what I did not say.
    Quote: Litsvin
    And how are you going to armor the underwater part of the ship from mine-torpedo weapons, including high-speed missile torpedoes?

    And how has this issue been resolved over the past 100 years? Also say that the structural protection against underwater explosion (albeit not as extensive as on large warships built 40-50g) is not applied to modern aircraft carriers and fuel dispensers.
  44. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 22 December 2015 20: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    If without the SBS at the side, then at first, if desired, a cluster anti-ship missile or an aeroballistic missile in the form of an anti-artillery ammunition or a heavy anti-aircraft missile of the S-200 type is undermined above the deck, after which a real "holiday" begins, and then AV simply gets a diving anti-ship missile under the keel which breaks its hull in half ...

    Are you retelling the latest Star Wars? Very intrigued by the moment about the "diving anti-ship missile under the keel that breaks its hull in half"
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 23 December 2015 12: 20 New
      0
      Calm down, she does not use flippers and a breathing tube at the same time ... lol
  45. Glad
    Glad 23 December 2015 05: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Litsvin
    I am writing about modern multi-layer booking, which can effectively withstand modern and promising means of destruction of the ship.

    With all due respect, but multi-layer armor will not be able to effectively resist not only promising, but also many modern means of destruction of the ship. For the striking ammunition is too powerful. Weights of explosives are not the same as in anti-tank systems. And it will be difficult to make sure that the armor elements (let's call them that) reliably protect the ship. The area to be protected is too large. Such protection cannot be made "monolithic". We'll have to recruit it from relatively small "pieces" with all the ensuing consequences in terms of the reliability of protection.
    Simply put, the ship is not easier from the fact that the RCC does not penetrate the armor element, but presses it into the hull.