Military Review

"Six-inch machine gun"

183



On the watch 15: 30, season of May, overboard Atlantic.

The beginning of the romantic comedy was overshadowed by the fresh breath of the “frantic fifties”. Depressive landscape, blown by the cold Antarctic wind. Flooring from low thunderstorm clouds. Water ramparts, crashing into the jaw of the ship, fountains of spray and flying shreds of sea foam.

Argentine ships cut down the ocean with the bow with the intention of circling the Falklands and taking the British into ticks. From the north, an aircraft carrier group headed by "Venticco de Mayo" was advancing. From the south, a strike mix from General Belgrano and two destroyers. And it is difficult to say, the meeting with which of the detachments was a great misfortune.

“Belgrano” was frankly old, but now it has become more dangerous with every minute. In their youth, such cruisers fired 100 shots per minute with the main caliber. A meeting with the frigates of Her Majesty promised to be short: the cruiser would kill them all, like cardboard boxes.

Fifty years before our era

The light cruiser “Brooklyn” had a length of 185 meters, a crew of 1000 people and a total displacement of more than 12 thousand tons. The “lightness” of this boar was not in its size, but in the size of the main caliber. Six inches (152 mm), quite solid for a cruiser.


Launch of the cruiser "Helena"


The appearance of “Brooklyn” is due to the London Maritime Agreement (1930), which divided all cruisers into “light” (category A) with a caliber of guns to 155 mm and “heavy” (category B) with a main caliber over 155 mm. At the same time, the construction rights of the latter were tightened, which led the leading maritime powers to start building well-balanced cruisers with six-inch guns.

Despite the standardization of the main characteristics, the same main caliber and belonging to the same epoch, cruisers differed greatly in characteristics and size. At first, the Japanese were ahead of everyone with their five-tower “Mogami”. Unaware that “Mogami” is an eastern trick, the Americans rushed to create their own counterpart. It was only with the beginning of the war that the Japanese quickly replaced the three-gun turrets with two-guns with 203-mm cannons, in one instant translating the “Mogami” into the category of heavy cruisers.

And the “Brooklyn” and remained the only light cruiser in the world with a record fire performance.

Five towers of three guns each, in total - fifteen guns with automatic longitudinally-sliding shutter. To save space and accelerate the supply of ammunition to the guns, a three-level ring store was used inside the barbets of the GK towers. For their phenomenal rate of fire and density of fire, “Brooklyn” got on navy the nickname is “six-inch machine guns”.

Less is not always worse. Yielding to the “Washingtonians” in terms of the power of ammunition (two times the mass difference between 6 '' and 8 '' shells), the LCR of the Brooklyn type was considered ideal for night artillery duels. Where in a short time it was necessary to “feed” the enemy with the maximum amount of hot metal.

Universal caliber "Brooklyn" consisted of eight 127 mm guns. Anti-aircraft weapons continuously evolved; by the middle of the war, it consisted of 4 quadruple and 4 paired Bofors and 28 rapid-fire small-caliber Oerlikon machines.

Unlike its European and Japanese peers, the Brooklyn did not carry either torpedo or anti-submarine weapons. Pure artillery ship, PLO tasks were entirely assigned to the escort destroyers.

To support the operation of the air group, there were two gunpowder catapults, a crane and a under-deck hangar for four seaplanes. The stock of aviation gasoline was 23 tons.

Despite their “lightness,” these cruisers had good armor for their class. The short, but durable belt armor of the citadel stretched from 61 to 103 sp., Having a thickness of 127 mm (on the bottom edge of 82 mm). The belt had a height of 4,2 meters and was installed on top of a “soft steel” plating with a thickness of 16 mm.

Ammunition protection was performed according to an unusual pattern. Three-level shops were covered with barbet walls 152 mm thick. The ammunition cellar of the main turrets was covered by an underwater 50-mm belt. The cellars of the stern towers were defended by a longitudinal bulkhead thickness 120 mm. External traverse cellars had a thickness of 95 mm.

The horizontal protection consisted of a 50-mm main armored deck.

The frontal plates of the towers with a thickness of 165 mm had the best protection. The walls had a thickness of 38-76 mm.

The power plant consisted of eight Babcock & Wilksos water-tube boilers and four Parsons jet tubes with a total capacity of 100 hp, which provided the cruisers with a speed of 000 knots.

Like all American ships, the "Brooklyn" possessed high autonomy and were well adapted for operations in the ocean. With a full supply of oil (2200 tons), the cruiser was able to pass 10 000 miles at a cruising speed of 15 ties.

It is curious that the total capacity of the on-board power plant “Brooklyn” (3600 kW) was twice the required power weapons and mechanisms. It was as if someone was planning to arm the warsaw cruiser in 1935. Joke. In combat conditions, the Yankees quickly realized the futility of this decision and limited power (two turbo-generators instead of four + two standby diesel generators).

The crew of the cruiser consisted of 868 sailors, but in combat conditions their number usually exceeded one thousand. Due to the presence of a solid deck instead of a short forecastle, it was possible to ensure sufficiently high standards of habitability for the crew. The officers were placed in single and double cabins, in the cockpits it was also not too crowded. Each sailor had a fixed bed and locker for personal items. On board the cruiser there was a well-equipped medical unit with an X-ray room.


"St. Louis" in the Solomon Islands, 1943


Nine cruisers of this type (seven original “Brooklyn” and two modernized LCR, assigned to the subtype “St. Louis”) earned 68 combat stars during the war years. All took an active part in the battles in the Pacific and European theaters of war. All received serious "wounds" from the actions of the enemy, but were again returned to the system. Not a single cruiser was lost in battle.

Among the famous episodes of their combat career:

- detonation of ammunition on the “Boise” cruiser in the battle at Cape Esperance (complete destruction of the nose, 107 dead);

- The kamikaze attack on the Nashville cruiser (the blast wave and splinters killed 133 people on the upper deck, however, the ship’s design did not receive any serious damage and it continued to perform the task);

- hit of the German guided bomb “Fritz-X” in the bow tower of the “Savannah” (Italian coast, 1943). The bomb broke through the 50 mm plate, flew through the entire structure of the tower and barbet and exploded in the cellar, knocking out the bottom. It took half an hour to put out the fire. Despite the serious damage and the loss of almost 200 people of its crew, “Savannah” was able to dock up to Malta, from where, after the ersatz repair, went under its own power for major repairs in the United States.

But the most famous история connected with the cruiser “Phoenix”. Happily survived Pearl Harbor, he still found his refuge on the seabed. Under the flag of a foreign country.

"Six-inch machine gun"

LCR "Phoenix" during the attack on Pearl Harbor


On the watch 15: 50. On the calendar May 1982 of the year. South Atlantic.

... The meeting with the frigates of Her Majesty promised to be short: “Belgrano” would have interrupted them all, like cardboard boxes.

The British had nothing to delay the cruiser. Neither powerful anti-ship missiles, nor decent artillery. What did the British 114 mm "pukalki" (one per ship) against the power of the artillery cruiser of the time of WWII?

The Britons could not even use the old proven method - launching anti-aircraft missiles at a surface target, within the limits of direct visibility, due to the lack of suitable SAMs (for the entire squadron there were only five destroyers with C Dart).

Deck Sea Harriers did not guarantee success either. As the experience of the war years showed, a cruiser of this type cannot be incapacitated by the hit of ordinary 500-fnl. aerial bombs The situation was complicated by the fact that in the year 1968 “Belgrano” was upgraded with the installation of two anti-aircraft missile systems “Cat Cat”. However, he still carried strong anti-aircraft artillery from the Bofors and the Oerlikon.

Just one hit from a six-inch gun could destroy any British ship (especially the one that burned out from the unexploded RCC). The six-inch projectile is not a joke: the 59-kg “pig” flying at two speeds of sound. When it explodes, a crater forms in the ground, deep in human growth.

An additional threat was created by the Belgrano escort. Two destroyers (formerly American “Allen M. Sumner” of the war years), re-armed with “Exocet” anti-ship missiles.

There was only one possible option. Behind the stern “General Belgrano” an invisible shadow slid throughout the day - the nuclear submarine “Conquerror”.

4 May 1982 of the year 15: 57 submarine “Conquerror” produced a three torpedo salvo, becoming the first in the history of a nuclear submarine to sink a ship in real combat conditions.



The explosion of the first torpedo tore off the bow of the Belgrano, the second made a 20-meter hole in the port side. The cruiser went under water, taking with him the 323 man from the 1093-x, who were on board.

It is curious that the uncontrollable British torpedoes Mark VIII of the 1927 model of the year became the cause of the death of the cruiser. Despite the presence of modern torpedoes “Tigerfish”, the submarine commander chose the old proven weapons. And it brought victory. Great shot, sir! Of the three torpedoes fired, two hit the cruiser, the third left a dent in the side of the destroyer Ippolito Bouchard (a misfire of a fuse).



The cruiser was sunk outside the British declared 200-mile zone of the database. However, any insinuations about the legality of the use of weapons end in nothing. The meaning of the 200-mile “war zone” was to prevent casualties among civilian aircraft and ships of third countries. From a military point of view, this was a pure convention. An example of this is the sunken Belgrano. Reverse Example - Argentinean Combat aviationoperating from airbases on the continent.

One thing is certain - the shot of “Conqueror” predetermined the outcome of the war, forcing the Argentine fleet to return to base and not leave from there until the end of the war.
Author:
183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Good cat
    Good cat 26 January 2016 07: 05
    14
    Oh, what a pity they didn’t break the insoles!
    1. yehat
      yehat 27 January 2016 00: 49
      +1
      They broke it, but the British had a great experience of similar operations during the Second World War and the tactical failures of the Argentines were actually a foregone conclusion.
      For example, why did the cruiser not go anti-submarine zigzag?
      Why did the acoustics miss the attack of the submarine? After all, there was a whole warrant of ships.
      a separate discussion about air patrols like Catalina's coastal zone.
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 27 January 2016 22: 38
        0
        The classic "Latinos sloppiness" alas ...
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 27 January 2016 22: 37
      0
      They broke in, sank a couple of EMs, corvettes, TDK, auxiliary AV (from a container ship). If only the technicians had more brains (so that the bomb detonators could be set for instant action) and a little less "dementia and courage" from Aerea Argentina, then they could "push Maggie out of the shot"
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 28 January 2016 07: 21
        +4
        Quote: Bersaglieri
        If there were more brains for technicians (in order to set bomb detonators for instant action)

        The bombs of the Mk.80 series were, in principle, not intended for bombing from low altitudes.
        Quote: Bersaglieri
        and a little less "dementia and courage" in Area Argentina

        would be ashamed to write this

        Sunk:
        - Sheffield destroyer;
        - the destroyer "Coventry";
        - frigate "Ardent";
        - frigate "Entiloup";
        - amphibious assault ship "Sir Galahed";
        - transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
        - landing boat Foxtrot Four (from the composition of the UDC HMS Fearless).

        Damaged:
        - the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
        - the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
        - the destroyer "Glamorgan" - PKR "Exochet" (the only one on the list, damaged by fire from the shore);
        - the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
        - the frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, the "Argonaut" was in the balance from death;
        - the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
        - Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
        - frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;
        - frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from a strafing flight;
        - landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
        - the landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
        - amphibious assault ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded aerial bomb;
        - British Way tanker - unexploded bombshell;
        - transport "Stromness" - unexploded air bomb.
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 28 January 2016 19: 13
          0
          What about your own losses? How many Skyhawks and Daggers were shot down?
          Well, on "Mackey" or "Pukara" attacks, there was pure suicide.
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 28 January 2016 22: 27
            +1
            Quote: Bersaglieri
            How many Skyhawks and Daggers were shot down?

            20 Skyhawks, 11 Daggers
            9 Pukar blown up by special forces on the ground (raid on Pebble Island)

            The cost of one Sheffield was higher than the cost of all downed Skyhawks.
            the helicopters burned on the Atlantic were worth more than the blown up Pukars
            Quote: Bersaglieri
            Well, on "Mackey" or "Pukara" attacks, there was pure suicide.

            How did Mackey differ from Skyhawk in terms of vitality?
  2. V.ic
    V.ic 26 January 2016 07: 54
    -4
    Sinking a training ship, heroes ...
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 26 January 2016 08: 09
      10
      Quote: V.ic
      training ship

      ARA General Belgrano - flagship of the Argentine Navy Task Force 79.3

      In addition to the cruiser, the TF 79.3 included two anti-submarine destroyers - Ippolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena, who chased the boat, but to no avail - the British knew their business
      Quote: V.ic
      Sinking a training ship, heroes ...

      ... at a distance of 12 km from their native shores.

      And, by the way, the boat was not the most perfect - "Konkerror" was launched in 1969, armament - torpedoes of the late 1920s
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 26 January 2016 15: 11
        -2
        Quote: BENNERT
        at a distance 12 000 km from the native coast.

        This is almost the diameter of the globe. Buy a globe and pull the thread, describe the circle. By the way, the distance from Buenos Aires in a straight line to London 11093 km. Are everyone in the "states" as smart as you?
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 26 January 2016 22: 15
          +2
          And from the RN base to the area where the Belgrano went? Hints: the base was in the North of Scotland (about 700 km north of London) and Belgrano was drowned south of Falkland (Malvin), and not at Buenos Aires, which is much to the north. So it will turn out 12000 km, moreover, "with a hook" :)
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 27 January 2016 08: 02
            -1
            Quote: Bersaglieri
            So it will turn out 12000 km, moreover, "with a hook" :)

            All the same, your arithmetic does not agree with your "one-thinker" - "The Falkland Islands are located at a distance of 13 thousand kilometers from Great Britain and 400 kilometers from Argentina."
            http://ria.ru/spravka/20130408/931579733.html#ixzz3yPxMJ0VA
            1. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 27 January 2016 22: 34
              +1
              Use a curvimeter, colleague :)
  3. Pig
    Pig 26 January 2016 08: 09
    -3
    "" Sink the training ship, heroes ... "" "
    and even in neutral waters
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 26 January 2016 08: 12
      +7
      Quote: Pig
      and even in neutral waters

      "Belgrano" came there to fish

      There were two opposing sides, and the ocean in which their fleets fought. What "neutral waters" are we talking about?
      1. Pig
        Pig 26 January 2016 08: 38
        +2
        "" The attack was carried out outside the 200-mile "war zone" declared by the British, in the immediate vicinity of the Argentine island of Estados ""
        "" Many observers criticized the UK for the cruiser being sunk outside the 200-mile zone declared by IMI SAMIMI (and which itself was likely in violation of international maritime warfare law). A version was also put forward that the sinking was carried out with the aim of disrupting the peace initiatives of the Peruvian President Beloundo Terry, but at the official level this version is denied. In 1994, Argentina's Ministry of Defense declared sinking to be "an unprohibited act of war without criminal responsibility." Despite this, in 2000, Argentina appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with a complaint about the illegality of the UK's actions in the case of General Belgrano ""
        the British needed a "victory" after the loss of ships and voila!
        "" The British press reported the sinking of General Belgrano as the first major victory for British forces in the outbreak of war. "
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 26 January 2016 09: 11
          +7
          Quote: Pig
          declared by them (and which in itself was probably a violation of international legal norms of warfare at sea)

          What is advised in this case international legal norms.??
          Getting to the Falklands on airships? Not using weapons
          Quote: Pig
          to disrupt the peace initiatives of Peruvian President Belaundo Terry

          what are the peace initiatives of the peruvian president laughing that he could offer the Argentine junta, which desperately needed this war. Or Thatcher, who could not allow the loss of the islands, spitting in the face of the whole nation

          Maybe it was worth listening to the opinion of the King of Zimbabwe?
          Quote: Pig
          the British needed a "victory" after the loss of ships and voila!

          Voila, "Belgrano" - the first victim of the war, sunk May 2, 1982 The first British ship ("Sheffield") will be sunk only two days later.

          The cruiser was destroyed because it posed a real threat
          ... The meeting with the frigates of Her Majesty promised to be short: “Belgrano” would have interrupted them all, like cardboard boxes.

          The British had nothing to delay the cruiser. Neither powerful anti-ship missiles, nor decent artillery. What did the British 114 mm "pukalki" (one per ship) against the power of the artillery cruiser of the time of WWII?
          1. Pig
            Pig 26 January 2016 10: 43
            -4
            lope bukaf ...
            I'm not a specialist in maritime law but what for then it was necessary to declare "200 mile war zone" if you don't give a damn where to drown and who? just so that would complicate your actions?
            so then they also violated their own rules ...
            argentos that adhere to these rules
            1. AK64
              AK64 26 January 2016 11: 28
              +5
              lope bukaf ...
              I'm not a specialist in maritime law but what for then it was necessary to declare "200 mile war zone" if you don't give a damn where to drown and who? just so that would complicate your actions?
              so then they also violated their own rules ...
              argentos that adhere to these rules

              In order not to be floated / flown CIVIL boats / planes of THIRD countries.
              And just for that
              1. Pig
                Pig 26 January 2016 12: 12
                +4
                for this there are clear rules for navigation in the war zone and there is no "200 mile war zone" ...
                again:
                what for it was necessary to invent, loudly announce to the whole world and then break it ourselves? and at the same time demand that the enemy (!) respect the boundaries of this "zone" ???
                But don't my Spanish-American friends seem to you that these are the very double standards that are so loved in the "civilized" Western world?
                just imagine what would happen if the Argentines did this ... I'm sure what thread the "international tribunal" modeled on the Hague would have already sued the entire Argentine leadership
                and the claims of the losers of the Argentos were simply stupidly scored
              2. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 January 2016 14: 23
                +1
                Goleted lies. Then, when the British cut through this zone (for Argentine ships and aircraft), they expanded to Argentinean 12-mile territorial waters.
                As for the rest, about the "Conqueror" shot again, a lie, a star and a provocation! The Argentine aircraft carrier fleet locked itself in the bases because their anti-submarine aviation was not allowed to work by the Harriers, and neither the subsonic deck-based nor the supersonic continental airfield aviation of Argentina was unable to fight them. The PLO aviation was working - there would not be an English boat there or lying on the bottom.
                "Belgrano" was a dangerous ship for the British NK (it seems that there were no torpedo weapons at that time).
                The Argentine command came under him simply by dividing the fleet and withdrawing the cruiser from under at least some anti-submarine cover from the aircraft carrier that was in the northern group.
                And why did the British torpedo him there (and others who like composting the brain here) can write anything ...

                It’s one thing when the zone is declared unsafe for the neutrals, another thing is when it is forbidden, the USSR simply didn’t butt them and, respecting their frustrated feelings, took its scouts. When they wanted to expand this zone one more time they were simply told not to do it. laughing Something would hit the Soviet ship or plane, and then it would be a completely different war, and with a different result for small Britain. yes laughing
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 17: 04
            +2
            Quote: BENNERT
            The cruiser was destroyed because it posed a real threat

            Very funny. What threat could this "ancient warrior backward warrior" pose to the same "Sheffield"? Or do you seriously think that after being hit by two dozen Sea Darts, a Brooklyn-class cruiser will still be able to fight? :)
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 26 January 2016 23: 53
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Or do you seriously think that after being hit by two dozen Sea Darts, the Brooklyn-class cruiser will still be able to fight ?:

              seriously think Sheffield can take more than one 6 "hit?
              he unstuck from an unexploded rocket

              By the way, two dozen C Darts are the entire ammunition load of the Sheffield))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What threat could this "ancient warrior backward" pose to the same "Sheffield"?

              What threat could a British frigate pose to Brooklyn?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 07: 18
                +2
                Quote: BENNERT
                seriously think Sheffield can take more than one hit 6 "

                Why would he stand something?
                Quote: BENNERT
                By the way, two dozen C Darts are the entire ammunition load of the Sheffield))

                Absolutely.
                “Belgrano” simply will not be able to get close to “Sheffield” at a distance of using their 152-mm. Sheffield is able to use up its 22 missiles in about 6-8 minutes after the Belgrano appears on radar. At the same time, "Belgrano does not have electronic countermeasures to deflect these missiles and does not have the means to intercept these missiles. In such conditions, the probability of a hit will tend to 0,9-0,95.
                Quote: BENNERT
                What threat could a British frigate pose to Brooklyn?

                SAM "Sea dart" has a warhead with 10 or 11 kg of explosives, plus unused fuel.
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 27 January 2016 07: 54
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Why would he stand something?

                  "And for what?"
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Sheffield is able to use up its 22 missiles in about 6-8 minutes after the Belgrano appears on radar.

                  why didn’t he spend them when the attack aircraft (coventry) appeared

                  sheffield was 5
                  the remaining 15 are defenseless frigates
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In such conditions, the probability of hitting will tend to 0,9-0,95.

                  what is the probability that sheffield will be the first to meet Belgrano
                  not ardent or antilope
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  UR "Sea dart" has a warhead with 10 or 11 kg of explosives, plus unused fuel.

                  The shell of the 6 "cannon had a speed of 812 m / s and a mass of 59 kg.

                  100 rounds per minute
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 08: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    "And for what?"

                    "it would be for what - I would kill at all!" :))
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    why didn’t he spend them when the attack aircraft (coventry) appeared

                    Well, why compare shooting at an airplane and at an almost stationary (compared to an airplane) target :)). This time. And the second - there is such a thing as reaction time. When attacked by aircraft, it is minimal, therefore, air defense missile defense calculations sometimes simply do not have time to get ready for firing, while when the cruiser appears, this is more than enough time.
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    what is the likelihood that the first with Belgran will meet Sheffield is not ardent or antilope

                    Well, the cruiser will get 4 Exocet anti-ship missiles, and then Ardent, retreating, will point him at other ships :)
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    the remaining 15 are defenseless frigates

                    With four Exocets for each? It seems to me that the cruiser is defenseless here laughing
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    Projectile 6 "guns had a speed of 812 m / s and a mass of 59 kg 100 rounds per minute

                    And the maximum range of 23 800 meters, at which "Belgrano" could shoot (do not forget that "shoot" and "hit" are fundamentally different terms) and up to which "Belgrano" would not be allowed
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 28 January 2016 08: 06
                      0
                      Here are some interesting facts.

                      1. Sea Dart is of little use against large ships.

                      Google Translate: in the surface warhead security mode, the device is protected and, therefore, the damage caused is limited to the physical impact of the rocket body and the unspent share of 46 liters (12 US gallons) of kerosene

                      As far as I understand, the SAM did not have a contact fuse, and non-contact in such cases, for obvious reasons, is turned off

                      Total 550 kg is the mass of the starting accelerator (drop-off Chow solid-fuel booster, at least 100 kg) and minus the mass of burnt fuel (half, for a distance of 35 km). In the best case, ~ 400 kg remains, of which 20 liters of kerosene.

                      This is not a multi-ton RIM-8 THALOS


                      Farther:

                      2. The frigate type 21 had only 4 anti-ship missiles Exoset

                      The four most famous facts of the combat use of the same type of missiles (Sheffield, Glamorgan, Aconveyor, Stark) - for 6 hits, four fuses that failed (75% bounce rate)

                      How Exocet warhead behaves when meeting with an armored side or other protected parts of the ship - there is reason to believe that it will instantly collapse. RCC debris ricochets and flies into the water



                      3. Taking into account the flight path of Exocet (NVD), the most probable place of impact is the surface of the side, a couple of meters above the waterline.

                      4. "Exocet" will never have enough energy to break through a 140 mm belt.

                      5. Damage caused by "Exocet", even with the normal operation of the warhead - what are the chances that they can lead to the loss of combat capability. As the Brooklyn's career during WWII testifies, the odds are low.

                      6. Any hit of 6 "is deadly for an English frigate. It is highly likely that after the first hit it will be enveloped in toxic smoke and lose the ability to fight.

                      7. Shoot and hit are two different things. But the cruiser has a huge rate of fire. Even with accuracy at a fraction of a percent - it is guaranteed to cover the target within a couple of minutes

                      8. It is obvious that the real capabilities of the British air defense systems of that era (reaction time, noise immunity, the ability to fire at low-flying and surface targets - guidance near water) were very different from the declared performance characteristics. "Coventry" and "Broadsward" did not have time to fire a single shot at the planes circling above them.

                      As one of those present noted interestingly -
                      Few people thought that modern ships of such a power as Great Britain! will successfully hammer uncontrolled bombs, but here you are. Therefore, far from everything is clear in the duel of such ships as the art cruiser of World War II and destroyers with frigates 70-80gg
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2016 12: 57
                        +2
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Sea Dart is of little use against large ships.

                        During the tests, Xi Dart fired at the surface ship. It was noted that the destroyer-class ship was severely damaged.
                        According to foreign press reports, the Sea Dart missile inflicted serious damage to surface ships of the destroyer class.

                        http://www.zvo.su/VMS/sistema-zuro-si-dart.html
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        As far as I understand, the SAM did not have a contact fuse, and non-contact in such cases, for obvious reasons, is turned off

                        I understand that "Camel is a horse made in England", but still we will not consider the British as alternatively gifted. If they initially assumed the use of missiles against surface and even ground (!) Targets, then one must think that such an elementary thing as the possibility of contact detonation of warheads was foreseen. It is quite possible that contact action is one of the modes of a standard fuse.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        The four most famous facts of the combat use of the same type of missiles (Sheffield, Glamorgan, Aconveyor, Stark) - for 6 hits, four fuses failed (75% of failures)

                        In this case - 3 by 3, because one rocket exploded in Stark and two in Atlantic
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        How Exocet warhead behaves when meeting with an armored side or other protected parts of the ship

                        And what makes you think that she will meet with them?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Taking into account the flight path of Exocet (NVD), the most probable place of impact is the surface of the side, a couple of meters above the waterline.

                        So, the British frigate sees the Argentine cruiser marching closer and gives a four-rocket salvo. missiles hit the bow of the cruiser. She is unarmored. The second option - missiles fall on board the cruiser (why not? Maybe he saw the missiles, turned onboard? :))) Do you really think that the Belgrano armored belt was more than 1,5 m above the water? I very much doubt it
                        Most likely the missiles in this case will fall on board the NAD citadel.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2016 12: 58
                        +2
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Damage caused by Exocet, even if the warhead is triggered normally, - what are the chances that they can lead to the loss of combat capability. As the Brooklyn's career during WWII testifies, the odds are low.

                        Where does this opinion come from? "Saint-Louis" getting hit by an ordinary kamikaze was forced to go to be repaired in the United States. And nothing else similar to the fall of anti-ship missiles on the share of cruisers of this type did not fall out.
                        Hitting the unarmored bow will at least reduce the cruiser’s turn, after which he will not come close to anyone - he will simply be shot with SAM and anti-ship missiles without entering the fire zone of his 152-mm guns.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Shooting and shooting are two different things. But the cruiser has a huge rate of fire. Even with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent - it is guaranteed to cover the target within a couple of minutes

                        The speed of the sighting is in no way connected with the rate of fire. No American cruisers demonstrated the ability to cover a target from the first salvo at a distance of 130 kb
                        And do not forget that Sheffield can use missiles before the cruiser approaches the firing range
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Obviously, the real capabilities of British air defense systems of that era (reaction time, noise immunity, the ability to fire at low-flying and surface targets - pointing near water)

                        Nevertheless, to visit a target that is orders of magnitude larger than an airplane and orders of magnitude less speedy is not a problem.
                        Soviet air defense systems "Shtorm" from 20 km fell into a high-speed boat.
                      3. Bennert
                        Bennert 28 January 2016 23: 37
                        -1
                        1. Sea Dart has a medium ability against small surface ships, tested against a Brave-class fast patrol boat, I don’t hear anything about destroyers

                        Serious damage to the destroyers caused Talos, 1,5 tons, warhead 136 kg

                        2. What is a missile fuse for? With their tight layout and saving every gram of weight. They were not created for firing at ships.

                        3. Not the fact that Sheffield will start shooting first. His commander likes to turn off the radar.

                        4. Not the fact that Sheffield will start shooting before the cruiser.
                        Maximum oblique range (target does not maneuver, no interference), km at high altitudes ... 80, at low and medium altitudes ... 20 - 48

                        Problem with aiming at a target in the background of water?

                        5. The cruiser is not required to hit from the first salvo. Each tower fired 8 times in a minute. It took a single hit.

                        6. About St. Louis

                        At 11:38 am, the Shaft kamikaze dive into St. Louis and exploded with a bomb on impact. Fires broke out in the area and spaces of the cruiser hangar. All of the crew members of the 20mm 7-10 cannons were killed or wounded ... in 1151 two more enemy aircraft attacked St. Louis. The first quarter is from the port, and the second into the starboard side and crashed almost on board on the side of the port. A portion of the 20 ft (6,1 m) armor belt was lost and numerous holes were ripped into her hull.

                        Three non-acidic explosions. L / s losses - 16 killed, 21 wounded. The cruiser returns under its own power across the ocean. And what do you think are the chances that the GK towers have suffered? )))

                        7. The area of ​​Belgrano’s armored units is too large to be neglected.

                        Exocet gets into the aft part of Glamorgan. In Belgrano's case, he would have hit the main battle towers

                        8. 50% failure rate means that out of four missiles fired, two will be damaged. And given the hit in the armor - and even less.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2016 07: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Sea Dart has a medium ability against small surface ships, tested against the Brave-class fast patrol boat, nothing is heard about the destroyers

                        I quoted the ZVO (Foreign Military Survey) - a very authoritative source, which directly writes "based on the materials of the foreign press." And the fact that these materials do not coincide with your Internet source (by the way, what kind of source is it? :) it is 98% likely to be a source problem, but not C Dart.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        What is a missile fuse for?

                        Let me think ... For shooting at ships? laughing If the British were planning to use Sea Dart on a surface target, why would they refuse a contact fuse?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        With their tight layout and saving every gram of weight

                        EMNIP is an old-time radio fuse of 127-mm shells from the Second World War - and he had a switch to contact mode.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        They were not created for firing at ships.

                        And they were tested on ships due to inherent mental deviation, which did not allow the British to distinguish a ship from an airplane? :)
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Not the fact that Sheffield will start shooting first. His commander likes to turn off the radar.

                        Did he also like to turn off his eyes? In fact, visually, the cruiser will be visible before it approaches the firing distance
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Maximum oblique range (target does not maneuver, no interference), km at high altitudes ... 80, at low and medium altitudes ... 20 - 48

                        That's right - for any low-sided heresy like a boat or a barge it will be 20 km For a high-sided cruiser with developed superstructures - more.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Problem with aiming at a target in the background of water?

                        What kind? This is not RCC with its few square meters EPR maximum. Here, the EPR is orders of magnitude larger - in fact, the backlight radar can be induced manually :)) But it’s centimeter at Sea Dart, it’s not an obstacle to it.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2016 07: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        The cruiser is not required to hit from the first salvo. Each tower fired 8 times in a minute.

                        It will look like this - three volleys with an interval of five seconds, five rounds each, then wait for the last volley to fall (sighting with a double ledge). 93 seconds after the first salvo (the Brooklyn projectile flies 77 seconds to the maximum range), Belgrano will see the last volley fall. Seconds 20 to correct - three volleys of dreams. And on the third "trials" there is a chance of covering.
                        That's just what will happen (at best) in more than 5 minutes. And at Sea Dart, the rate of fire is about 2 missiles in 30 sec. Despite the fact that Sheffield can shoot immediately after detection (moreover, he can just drape off Belgrano for some time if the air defense system is not ready to shoot), but Belgrano needs to get closer
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        It took a single hit.

                        (heavy sigh) - the exoset that got into Sheffield ignited the fuel. The shell has nothing to burn - it’s not at all a fact that a single hit will cause a fire. It can generally fall into some unimportant place, a shell can penetrate a ship and fly away without breaking, in general, say that Sheffield will die from a single hit, very much in the spirit of Kaptsov. Biting and mistaken.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        In the case of Belgrano - he would hit the towers of the Civil Code

                        Who would have thought? :))) And you tell me about how exosets going over the waves break down on the citadel laughing
                        In general, take a closer look at the silhouette of the destroyer. He has a hangar, well, it’s never in the place of towers :) However, this conversation does not matter much - it all depends on the angle from which the rocket will go, and the rocket itself under the same conditions can go a dozen or two meters to the left / right
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        50% failure rate means that out of four missiles fired, two will be damaged. And given the hit in the armor - and even less.

                        All four will be damaged, just unexploded will damage the cruiser less. And Brn ... well, maybe one will get into the armor. And not the fact that it will be a rocket with a working fuse
                      6. Bennert
                        Bennert 29 January 2016 08: 46
                        0
                        1. Based on materials from foreign press
                        http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34218&page=2

                        For missile boats, (Komar wood / Project 183) the proximity air blast probably worked very well. For larger ships, contact fuses were added to the Tartarus and later terriers in part to better attack them. Talos was to be launched with a fuse inactivated against large targets shipas mentioned by Sea Dart.

                        If anything, Sea Dart is a small copy of Talos.
                        Talos did not have a contact fuse. And Sea Dart didn't have either -

                        damage caused is limited to the physical impact of the rocket body and the unspent share of 46 liters (12 US gallons) of kerosene

                        2. Sheffield likes to turn off the radar during a storm when visibility is reduced to a couple of miles.

                        But the commander is not in the CCP

                        3. At 14.04, the Exoset hit the starboard side in the middle of the ship, a few feet above the waterline. In the case of Belgrano, she would have hit the belt. With zero result.

                        4. I personally didn’t shoot from cannons, but I’m not sure that I would wait 77 seconds before the surge. During that time, you can give a couple more volleys, in cascade. In the presence of modern radars that determine the distance to the target with an accuracy of meters - the chances of getting increased by several times.

                        5. The reaction time of the SAM? Computers and consoles of the 80s.

                        6. One or two hits, with the formation of heavy fragments that riddled half the hull. Bridge + CCU? Radars Rocket storage? Fuel line? Helicopter explosion in hangar? The small destroyer is filled with fragile and flammable equipment.

                        After which, Sheffil will light up, slow down and / or not be able to let CiDarta

                        7. Glamoran - a strike, just at the level of Belgrano's stern towers. The rocket slid along the upper deck and, without bursting, rolled into the hangar. Emnip burned 19 people.

                        here is her trace:
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2016 16: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Based on materials of the foreign press http: //www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php? Showtopic = 34218 & page = 2

                        Clear. Those. to a solid publication, which was the ZVO, you contrast the opinion of the American blogger - and do not even doubt your own right.
                        Well, you have every right to your own opinion, at least you express it correctly.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Sheffield loves to turn off the radar in a storm when visibility is reduced to a couple of miles. And the commander is not in the CCP

                        Clear :))) The crew of the destroyer is deaf-blind, doesn’t see anything, the radar cannot turn on. So I agree with you - Belgrano can drown Sheffield if the crew of the British destroyer is blind and does not use any means of detecting the enemy.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        At 14.04, the Exoset hit the starboard side in the middle of the ship, a few feet above the waterline. In the case of Belgrano, she would have hit the belt. With zero result.

                        A few is how much? if 3-4 - then yes, if 5-7 - then not a fact. And what do you ignore getting into the Glamrgan that you so kindly brought? And where did the exoset actually end up not even in the building? :) Do you also want to remember the place where the exosets hit Stark? :)
                        Your right.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Personally, I didn’t shoot from cannons, but I’m not sure that I would wait 77 seconds before the surge. During that time, you can give a couple more volleys, in cascade.

                        First, we shot ourselves with a fork - a volley - we observe a fall - we set a scope so that there is a guaranteed shortage (if there was a flight) or a flight (if there was a shortage) - a new volley - we wait for a fall - if everything worked out, set the scope to the middle between the first and second, etc. d.
                        Double ledge - make a volley, focusing on the flight, without waiting for the projectile to fall, make a second volley (focusing on the cover) and not waiting for its fall, make the third volley, focusing on the short range (having 5 towers of three guns - shoot 1 gun for each volley towers)
                        Then we sit down to smoke bamboo and watch the fall - one-second-third. For three falls, to orientate how well we took the sight is no simpler example than one at a time.
                        Repeat until covered.
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2016 16: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        In the presence of modern radars that determine the distance to the target with an accuracy of meters - the chances of getting increased by several times.

                        On Belgrano, there is no radar capable of determining the position of the target with an accuracy of meters. But the funny thing is that even if it were, there’s little use for it - the ship does not shoot at the point where the target is, but at a certain place in the space in which this ship will be during the fall of shells. And to calculate it, you need to know not only the distance to the ship, but also the course / speed of the target. And introduce a million amendments (for the movement of your own ship, for example)
                        Those. What is needed is not just a radar, but a full-fledged LMS with an artradar integrated into a computer complex. But this does not at all give a 100% guarantee of the accuracy of the sight. Now it is, Belgrano didn’t.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        SAM reaction time? Computers and consoles of the 80s

                        inconsequentially. No one is stopping Sheffield from preparing to fire his air defense system while fleeing Belgrano. I repeat, the distance of VISUAL detection of Belgrano is greater than its maximum firing range.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Glamoran - a strike, just at the level of the Belgrano's stern towers.

                        Fir-trees, well, what do you want me to attach a picture with ship silhouettes? :)
                      9. Bennert
                        Bennert 29 January 2016 23: 33
                        +1
                        1. Shooting by Sea Dart according to ZVO raises doubts. The manuals of those years sinned with inaccuracies, especially in the assessment of combat damage and performance characteristics of Western equipment.

                        2. There is no specific information about the firing at destroyers; there is only a mention of the Brave boat. The closest analogue - Talos did not have a contact detonator.

                        2a. Good question - where did the British destroyer target? Something like Eilat or even less?

                        3. The weather in the area was non-flying: horizontal visibility range was not more than 400 m, and the lower edge of the clouds descended to 100 m. At this time, Sheffield was negotiating with London via the Skynet satellite communications channel. To eliminate interference, the commander of the ship ordered to turn off all on-board electronic equipment.

                        4. The area of ​​reserved places is too large to neglect them. If Belgrano was in the place of Stark, Sheffield and Glamorgan, the hits would have come in armor (2 in the tower area, 1 in the belt, six feet above the waterline).

                        5. You can smoke a minute.

                        During that time, the air defense system still will not have time to react, visit, deliver missiles to the launcher + flight time. If at all, Sheffield finds out about the approach of the enemy.

                        6. What systems besides Sea Cat were installed during the modernization of 1968? Have radars changed?

                        7. Computing complex?

                        KRL “Belfast”, 1940s


                        8. What is the assessment of threats from Belgrano in the event of a combined attack? Sheffield shoots back from the Skyhawks, at this time, directly at the course on the horizon - the silhouette of Belgrano.

                        9. Attach a picture with silhouettes, interesting
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2016 14: 14
                        0
                        This is where the discussion should end. Your "argumentation" has finally lost all semblance of such.
                        About the defeat of surface targets - I bring you the ZVO - you quote an unknown American blogger in response to me, and then say that you doubt it. It’s not a question, but you won’t be in doubt.
                        Contact fuse? "If there is nothing like that on the American Talos, then there cannot be on the Sea Dart." Brilliant argument wassat
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Good question - where did the British destroyer target?

                        indeed, where can this purely land nation living far in the mountains 100500 kilometers from the nearest body of water have a destroyer?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        visibility range was not more than 400 m

                        An example of why you do not need to use blog data.
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Too big reserved area to neglect them

                        Narrow, it’s good if one and a half meter strip of armor above the water from the first to the last tower and tower with barbets. Here, one should rather talk about a negligible area
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Computing complex?

                        Apotheosis. If you are already referring to analog calculators of the 40s, so take the trouble to find out how long it takes to shoot with their help at 130 kb. I am writing to you about modern SLAs, which (at least in theory) could provide a fast sighting of 24 thousand meters, and you show me an assembly that does not guarantee hit within an hour of fire fighting?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        If at all, Sheffield finds out about the approach of the enemy.

                        I say - the deaf-blind British are never able to detect the Argentine cruiser. "Quietly crept up, noiselessly clanging caterpillars"
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        What systems besides Sea Cat were installed during the modernization of 1968? Have radars changed?

                        And what does an unknown American blogger say about this?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        What is the Belgrano threat rating in the case of a combined attack? Sheffield shoots back from the Skyhawks, at this time, right on the course on the horizon - the silhouette of Belgrano

                        Yes Yes Yes. A ship of 12 thousand tons of full displacement plus aviation for a destroyer of 4350 tons of displacement :)) Maybe we will call "nimitz" right away?
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Attach a picture with silhouettes, interesting

                        Look. I hope there is no need to explain why the silhouettes of an equal length are taken?
          3. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 January 2016 10: 31
            +1
            Oleg, do you think in the photo the result of Talos breaking through the destroyer without an explosion?
            Even Onyx, Progress, Granites do not leave such damage.
            Apparently the explosion turned the ship around.

            Below I brought a video of 3 anti-aircraft missiles hitting a ship - not weak even for a cruiser to get a dozen such attacks
          4. Bennert
            Bennert 29 January 2016 10: 40
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Apparently the explosion turned the ship around.

            What explosion exactly?
            Unused fuel reserve of a 1,5-ton rocket

            By the way, the target is a destroyer of WWII times, it’s small
          5. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 January 2016 12: 50
            +1
            yes there clearly warhead worked. The network is full of videos and photos, where Bramos (3.5 tons), for example, breaks through SKR or a minesweeper of 1000 and 500 tons, respectively. Or holes from the Chelomeevsky missiles in target boats - there is no such damage from a blank even of 5 tons in weight

          6. Bennert
            Bennert 29 January 2016 22: 22
            0
            These photographs show a huge hole in DE where the rocket slashed the ship. The missile descended almost vertically, striking the midship only in the stern of the funnel, exploding in the boiler room and in the engine room. Imagine what would have been done if he carried a live warhead with 102 kg (225 pounds) of explosives! The only reason the ship stayed afloat long enough to take a photograph was because all the waterproof compartments were sealed

            from an eyewitness to the Oklahlma crew
            http://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20operations.html

            DE is not even a destroyer, the largest is 1300 t
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 28 January 2016 14: 53
    +1


    Three Tartars (identical in mass to Sea Dart)
  • AK64
    AK64 27 January 2016 09: 42
    0
    The shell of the 6 "cannon had a speed of 812 m / s and a mass of 59 kg.

    You confuse the mass of the shell and the explosive mass in it.
    In a 152mm high-explosive shell, usually about 5 kg of explosive.
    In armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing less.

    That is, by the action on unarmored the target is 152mm high-explosive shooting inferior to the warhead "Sea Dart"
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 10: 34
      +2
      Quote: AK64
      That is, in terms of action on an unarmored target, the 152mm high-explosive detachment is inferior to the "Sea Dart" warhead

      There is a nuance in which I myself, I must confess, did not understand the end. On the one hand, of course, the weight of an explosive rocket is higher than that of a projectile. On the other hand, a shell rupture creates fragments of strong steel (from which the shell is actually made) accelerated to very high speeds. And how to compare the effects here - I am definitely lost ... I still believe that the overall effect of the rocket is much higher (there are more explosives, then an explosive shell is still to be broken, energy wasted), but with great happiness, a fragment can fall into something important far from the place the gap
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 January 2016 10: 59
        +2
        There is a nuance in which I myself, I must confess, did not understand the end. On the one hand, of course, the weight of an explosive rocket is higher than that of a projectile. On the other hand, a shell rupture creates fragments of strong steel (from which the shell is actually made) accelerated to very high speeds.

        That's it: a projectile would need to add its own kinetic energy, and Sea Dart’s armor-piercing is simply none.
        Nevertheless, the effect on an unarmored target of C Dart will be much stronger than that of a 6 "high-explosive shell.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 27 January 2016 21: 16
    0
    A serious threat. Sheffield has no anti-ship missiles, no serious caliber. And "two dozen Sea Darts" are launched within the line of sight ... Fire from 3x5 6 'x 3-4 volleys / min will start a little earlier ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 21: 36
      +1
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Fire from 3x5 6 'x 3-4 volleys / min will start a little earlier

      LATER. Because the firing range of 152 mm Brooklyn is 23, it's less than line of sight
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 27 January 2016 22: 41
        0
        What is the line-of-sight distance for launching SyDarts on a surface target? Do not forget about the "shitty" of guidance radars when working near the surface of the water and so on ... The Soviet "Storm" was launched on the NC no further than 20 km. Sidart (sample 1980) has worse characteristics
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2016 11: 38
          +1
          Quote: Bersaglieri
          The Soviet "Shtorm" was launched on the NTs no further than 20 km.

          Where does this data come from? At state tests, the "storm" fired from 20 km at a speedboat and "from a little more than 20 km" at a barge, but nowhere is it said that this is the maximum range. I believe that the cruiser is "slightly" taller than both, so you can shoot at it from a greater distance
          Quote: Bersaglieri
          CiDart (1980) has worse performance

          But what's worse? :)) Actually, they even have different guidance systems - the Storm has a radio command, the Dart Way ... ehhkm ... semi-active.
  • yehat
    yehat 27 January 2016 00: 51
    0
    and why the English junta is better than the Argentine?
  • xan
    xan 26 January 2016 13: 27
    +4
    Quote: Pig
    In 1994, the Argentinean Ministry of Defense recognized the drowning as "an unlawful act of war without criminal liability."

    Yes, everything is correct, it is necessary to fight in an adult way, without any zones there. There are no rules in war. The cruiser should have been guarded, and unnecessarily not put under attack.
    1. AK64
      AK64 26 January 2016 16: 38
      +4
      question: how did they protect him? Two EMs in guard - and overslept the torpedo attack.

      So there is nothing to complain about: with such warriors and "cardboard boxes" it would have been sunk in the same way.
      1. Pig
        Pig 26 January 2016 18: 18
        0
        Naturally, they were badly guarded: they were NOT in the "200-mile war zone" which "all progressive mankind" "urged not to violate" ...
        they did not violate;)
        for me it's a one-way game
        1. AK64
          AK64 26 January 2016 20: 03
          +2
          Naturally, they were badly guarded: they were NOT in the "200-mile war zone" which "all progressive mankind" "urged not to violate" ...
          they did not violate;)

          Even in peacetime, it should serve according to the charter, and not according to "zones"


          for me it's a one-way game

          such are the warriors. Hence the "gate".
          What did they even try to do, is it completely not clear? Was it really expected that the British would not recognize satellite intelligence?
          Yes, and in the zone, to fight, somehow did not climb, but for some reason spun along the line ...

          It’s not clear to me their plan (and was there a plan there?)
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 27 January 2016 14: 45
            +2
            Of course it was - "everything was according to plan" + "and this is the main thing" ... "homosexuals" and others like them in the headquarters, who, in addition to the invented division of the fleet into northern and southern (non-aircraft-carrying, but with this cruiser) groups, also stuffed materials for the advanced airfield on the islands in the very last Argenin transport, which because of the blockade did not get there.
            If he was there, then the planes from him simply passed over the Harriers at high altitude and melt most of the ships of small Britain.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 27 January 2016 14: 38
        0
        The boat was guided by an American satellite constellation. The drowning was within the range of the Harriers and far from the Argentinian aircraft carrier with its Trackers. VTOL helicopters destroy destroyers easily; it’s the most difficult goal for other planes.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • V.ic
    V.ic 26 January 2016 19: 53
    0
    Quote: BENNERT
    "Belgrano" came there to fish

    Nearby Soviet sailors were fishing.
    "On May 2, the British nuclear submarine Conqueror attacked and struck the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano with torpedoes, and the attack was carried out outside the 200 mile zone around the islands declared by the British" war zone "and when the Argentines turned back to their ports." http://ymorno.ru/index.php?showtopic=59573&pid=476846&mode=threaded&start=
    The iron skirt did not want to assemble a cabinet to consider the peace proposals of the president of Peru, she needed blood.
    Quote: BENNERT
    What "neutral waters" are we talking about?

    It is about the fact that the antique cruiser was leaving the conflict zone.
    Thatcher: It was a danger to our ships ...
    Gould: Mrs Thatcher, I say that he was in the area of ​​208, which is located in the northwest ... This is already the western part of the Falkland Islands. Therefore, even if you have a good imagination, you cannot say otherwise than “moving away from the Falklands.” Http://mybiblioteka.su/4-68907.html
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 27 January 2016 20: 48
      +1
      google rejoice thatcher is dead in pictures
  • Kars
    Kars 26 January 2016 08: 18
    11
    ... The meeting with the frigates of Her Majesty promised to be short: “Belgrano” would have interrupted them all, like cardboard boxes.
    It’s a pity that I didn’t swim. It would be interesting how everything would turn out.
  • Bennert
    Bennert 26 January 2016 08: 22
    +3
    Quote: Author
    The power plant consisted of eight Babcock & Wilksos boilers and four Parsons turbines with a total capacity of 100 hp, which provided cruisers with a speed of 000 knots.

    “Brooklyn" had high autonomy. With a full supply of oil (2200 tons), the cruiser was able to go 10 miles at a cruising speed of 000 knots.

    It is curious that the total power of the Brooklyn on-board power station (3600 kW) was twice the required power of weapons and mechanisms. It was as if someone had planned to arm the cruiser with a railgun in 1935.


    + FIVE towers of the main caliber (each - a rotating seventy-ton structure installed over the upper deckhello stability)

    + armor

    + a bunch of other weapons

    on technological damage 80 years ago

    "Brooklyn" is a silent reproach to modern designers.
    What are laptop-like ships the size of a suitcase and the fragility of a crystal glass
    1. AK64
      AK64 26 January 2016 11: 26
      0
      "Brooklyn" is a silent reproach to modern designers.
      What are laptop-like ships the size of a suitcase and the fragility of a crystal glass

      Come on, flood from two old torpedoes!
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 January 2016 22: 09
        -1
        Quote: AK64
        Come on, flood from two old torpedoes!

        Old torpedoes relied on armored ships, is it appropriate to be ironic in this regard?
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 January 2016 00: 29
          +2
          What nafig "armor"?
          Where the torpedo hits "armor" - there are anti-mine (anti-torpedo) bullets, yes.
          but not the Brooklyn.
          Then all sorts of "watertight bulkheads" and so on begin.

          But actually a 12-ton carp was drowned by two torpedoes? And here we are told about the "fragility of a crystal glass"?
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 27 January 2016 01: 27
            -1
            Quote: AK64
            Where the torpedo hits "armor" - there are anti-mine (anti-torpedo) bullets, yes.
            but not the Brooklyn.

            Torpedoes not under Brooklyn created, they were used to increase the likelihood of defeat.
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 January 2016 09: 46
              0
              There where there is a torpedo, any torpedo, no armor.
              The armor is higher.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 27 January 2016 14: 33
                0
                Quote: AK64
                There where there is a torpedo, any torpedo, no armor.
                The armor is higher.

                I did not write that the torpedo hits the armor, the general design of the armored ship is stronger than the unarmored one.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 January 2016 16: 26
                  +3
                  not at all.
                  And mine protection (anti-torpedo) protection is in a completely different category. Yes and strength the ship has a very indirect relation to port mine defense.

                  And the fact is the fact: the submarine fired three obsolete upright torpedoes, and all three fell ... and not in some transports, but in warships. Let them rejoice that the third did not explode ... Otherwise, there would be twice as many funerals.
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 27 January 2016 21: 38
                    -1
                    Quote: AK64
                    not at all.

                    Calculation can imagine?
                    Quote: AK64
                    And mine protection (anti-torpedo) protection is in a completely different category.

                    I did not write about mine protection.
                    Quote: AK64
                    And the fact is the fact: the submarine fired three obsolete upright torpedoes, and all three fell ... and not in some transports, but in warships.

                    That is, not one but several ships hit three torpedoes?

                    Well, of course, why spend new, modern torpedoes on an old ship.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 January 2016 23: 01
                      +1
                      Calculation can imagine?

                      That is blurted out, and now get out?
                      Well, what exactly is the calculation?

                      I did not write about mine protection.

                      Because you do not know what it is. But mine and anti-torpedo are one and the same

                      That is, not one but several ships hit three torpedoes?

                      Have you ever read an article?
                      Two in Belgrano, the third in a destroyer. The third did not explode.


                      Well, of course, why spend new, modern torpedoes on an old ship.

                      I see you are an expert ....
                      "New" torpedoes differ from "old" ones in homing. Belrano was fired at by straight-going non-self-guided tarpedoes7 (Which is strange in itself - I'm surprised that they had them on board the submarine!)
                      And this despite the fact that the submarine had new, self-guiding.
                      So, in order to get straight-ahead and into a combat ship, and three times out of three --- this is at least one point-blank approach.

                      So the question arises: how did the args serve?
                      1. cheguevarazhiv
                        cheguevarazhiv 28 January 2016 16: 03
                        +2
                        The statement about the old torpedoes is provided only by the English side .... the percentage of hit indicates either incredible luck or that the torpedoes were homing or controlled
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 January 2016 20: 51
                0
                even if lower, the ship just breaks in half
          2. Bennert
            Bennert 27 January 2016 05: 43
            0
            Quote: AK64
            in fact, a 12-ton carp was drowned by two torpedoes? And here we are told about the "fragility of a crystal glass"?

            A torpedo will sink any ship
            but first you need to release it

            99% of the damage was done by air attack, before - bombs, now - bombs and anti-ship missiles. the use of heavy aircraft torpedoes (533 mm) is now excluded


            Armor is not from torpedoes
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 January 2016 09: 52
              +1
              A torpedo will sink any ship

              So just one torpedo, and so any?

              but first you need to release it

              So I say: "the service was carried" by the Argentines

              99% of the damage was done by air attack, before - bombs, now - bombs and anti-ship missiles. the use of heavy aircraft torpedoes (533 mm) is now excluded

              Against surface ships. Against the submarine is quite a
              1. Bennert
                Bennert 28 January 2016 07: 26
                0
                Quote: AK64
                So just one torpedo, and so any?

                TKR or KL, due to their size and strength, could withstand several
                but it doesn’t change the essence
                Quote: AK64
                "carried out" the Argentines

                in the same year "Conkerror" cut off the GAS behind the stern of the Soviet anti-submarine ship
                (Operation Waitress)
                Quote: AK64
                Against surface ships. Against the submarine is quite a

                The number of submarines worldwide is 100 times less than the number of combat aircraft

                bombs and rockets are the main threat
                1. AK64
                  AK64 28 January 2016 10: 38
                  0
                  TKR or KL, due to their size and strength, could withstand several
                  but it doesn’t change the essence

                  That changes: 12 krap quickly sinks from two torpedoes with 000 kg warhead. But to us he is given as an example as "non-crystal".

                  in the same year "Conkerror" cut off the GAS behind the stern of the Soviet anti-submarine ship

                  Are you hinting that the argi service is not correct, and is it just that the submarine is so secretive in British?
                  I think (in fact, I'm sure) they cut the CEOs by chance - as an president. The anti-submarine, however, could not shoot at them --- well, we had no war with them.

                  The number of submarines worldwide is 100 times less than the number of combat aircraft

                  bombs and rockets are the main threat

                  This does not change the essence of what has been said: torpedoes use and will use from airplanes - against submarines
                  1. Bennert
                    Bennert 28 January 2016 10: 52
                    -1
                    Quote: AK64
                    12 ship quickly sinks from two torpedoes with 000 kg warhead. But to us he is given as an example as "non-crystal".

                    They explained to you - torpedoes are very rare, specific weapons. And they will equally effectively sink both Zamvolt and Brooklyn

                    which is much more important - the cruisers of past years could withstand multiple hits ABOVE the waterlinewhat modern categorically cannot
                    Quote: AK64
                    torpedoes are and will be used from aircraft - against submarines

                    But we are talking about NK

                    where does the aviation anti-submarine torpedoes on parachutes?
                    Quote: AK64
                    Hint that argi is a bad service

                    I hint that there are still no effective methods of counteracting submarines

                    the ocean is too large and the uncertainty of the aquatic environment is too great
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 28 January 2016 13: 05
                      +1
                      They explained to you - torpedoes are very rare, specific weapons. And they will equally effectively sink both Zamvolt and Brooklyn

                      Look at the statistics of WWII. (By the way, the torpedo was just that time).
                      You don't need to look at small torpedoes, just look at 533mm. Well, it's over, "Long Lance" is also not necessary to look.
                      Two torpedoes for a 12000 cruiser ... Well, well.

                      which is much more important - the cruisers of past years could withstand multiple hits ABOVE the waterline, which modern categorically cannot

                      Just don't start here again these wars of blunt-pointed and pointed-tips. I said what I said: the karap that we are here in "reproach to the carabelam" is put very quickly drowning with two torpedoes. All.

                      But we are talking about NK

                      Two? And at us - about torpedoes and planes!

                      where does the aviation anti-submarine torpedoes on parachutes?

                      I don’t know why you started to tell these passions, I don’t know ...
                      By the way, they also used "parachutes" against surface ships.

                      I hint that there are still no effective methods of counteracting submarines

                      There is a gas mask for every gas. But the fact that the British from the three forward-looking torpedoes received TRs of a hit indicates service, isn't it? But in the detachment, besides the cruiser, there were TWO EMs.
                      If it’s not clear to you: in order to be a straight-forward torpea in war karap, it’s not enough to be an ace - you also need to come close. Look at the shooting of the Germans on commercial ships: but there were others at speed

                      the ocean is too large and the uncertainty of the aquatic environment is too great

                      Common words started? He will tell me about the infinity of the universe: I love cohads about the universe
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 January 2016 12: 32
      -1
      Quote: Kars
      . It would be interesting how everything would turn out.

      And how did it all turn out, the celestial axis shifted 60 degrees and the luminary turned over 180 degrees, no, “Belgrano” would have killed them all, would have broken a heating pad like an ace, but it is not clear why it didn’t turn out like that? Damn burned around there is a reason Yellow Submarine
      Nuclear submarine today.
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 January 2016 12: 49
      -2
      Quote: Kars
      It’s a pity that I didn’t swim. It would be interesting how everything would turn out.

      He would have torn apart all the British scandra like an ace, if it weren’t for this Yellow Submarine and all of Andrei’s attempts from Chelyabinsk to vanish with all due respect to him
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 January 2016 09: 56
        0
        If this submarine had not been there, the Harriers would have gouged it.
        If there were no Harriers, the Exosets would be gouging.
        If there were no Exocets, they would be gouged by Sea Darts.

        I will tell you more: for some reason I personally think that the British would have drowned Belgano with the Argentine team ... almost anything. Well, I would certainly have to strain a little. But slightly.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 27 January 2016 21: 02
          +1
          With what they came there with - only a core or torpedo with a submarine. Their NK at the time of the conflict did not carry large torpedoes.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 27 January 2016 22: 06
          -1
          Quote: AK64
          If this submarine had not been there, the Harriers would have gouged it.
          If there were no Harriers, the Exosets would be gouging.
          If there were no Exocets, they would be gouged by Sea Darts.

          Someone like you already answered this.
          Quote: AK64
          I will tell you more: for some reason I personally think that the British would have drowned Belgano with the Argentine team ... almost anything. Well, I would certainly have to strain a little. But slightly.

          Galoshes would be thrown.
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 January 2016 23: 08
            0
            Galoshes would be thrown.

            That is how
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 28 January 2016 00: 01
              0
              Long-range torpedoes if they had them on the NK.
        3. Maegrom
          Maegrom 29 January 2016 16: 45
          0
          With respect, Sea Darts are unlikely to be drowned - they would be sent for repair for longer, depending on the economic situation.
  • tchoni
    tchoni 26 January 2016 08: 26
    +2
    But I'm interested in the following: in the period before the Russian-Japanese war, the main weapon of the battleships, the captains shielded six-inch shields. Despite the presence of more serious calibers. Large cannons shielded ineffective due to their low rate of fire (some monsters from artillery generally had a rate of fire of about 4x! In this regard, the question arises: why such cruisers described in the article appeared only closer to WWII, and did not precede the "Dreadnought"
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 26 January 2016 09: 01
      +4
      Quote: tchoni
      why cruisers like those described in the article appeared only closer to WWII, and did not precede the "Dreadnought"

      Because long-range perfect six-inch appeared only closer to WWII

      152 mm gun Kane arr. 1891
      projectile weight: 41 kg
      rate of fire: 7-8 rds / min.
      Max. firing range: 13 kilometers

      305 mm gun of the Obukhov plant of the sample of 1895
      projectile weight: 331 kg
      rate of fire: 2 rds / min.
      Max. range: 29 kilometers

      Large-caliber guns had their own weighty advantages.

      Characteristics of later guns:

      American 6 ".47 model 1937
      projectile weight: 59 kg
      rate of fire: 8 rds / min.
      Max. range: 23 kilometers

      British 381 mm sea gun arr. 1915
      projectile weight: 871 kg
      rate of fire: 2 rds / min.
      Max. range in practice - hitting "Worspite" in "Cesar" from a distance of 24 km, at stationary ground targets - the average range of battleships was 35 km.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 26 January 2016 09: 21
        +1
        In any case, the combat charter of that time did not imply firing even at a distance of ten kilometers. The firing distance limits were covered by 25-30 cable distances, which corresponds to approximately five kilometers. This was due to the rather imperfect aiming mechanisms of heavy guns. The guidance error sometimes reached one degree across the horizon.
        At the then level of technology development, a six-inch system seems more convenient for the construction of towers by an artillery system. Due to the lower mass in comparison with even eight-inch guns and ease of maintenance calculation. (The projectile and charge masses allow manual loading with minimal automation.)
        After all, the rate of twelve inches of km was often determined not only and not so much by the gun as by the design of the feed elevator, artillery cellar and tower.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 26 January 2016 09: 49
          +4
          Quote: tchoni
          six-inch seems more convenient for the construction of towers artillery system. Due to the lower mass in comparison with even eight-inch guns and ease of maintenance calculation.

          The mass of the cannon cannon shell - 41 kg
          The mass of the shell 305 Russian guns - 331 kg !!

          The average ratio of the consumption of shells of the main and medium caliber in the Russo-Japanese War was 1: 5 - 1: 6. Those. the practical rate of fire of the Kane guns was only 5-6 times higher than that of the twelve-inch guns.

          In exchange, an eight-fold lag in the mass of the projectile.

          What does this mean?

          a direct participant in the Tsushima battle, British officer William Pekingham (who was an observer on board the battleship Asahi), later counted 76 hits in the Eagle, including five hits with 12-inch shells; eleven 8- and 10-inch shells; thirty-nine hits with 6-inch shells and 21 hits with small-caliber shells.

          And they could not sink it. HOW MUCH would it take 6 "shells to sink a large highly protected battleship?

          In this case, no one thought to abandon the medium caliber. The arms of the EDBs were organically represented by 4 guns of the Civil Code and 12 six-inch guns
          Quote: tchoni
          I didn’t suppose shooting even at a distance of ten km.

          not range, but mass. and the power of 12 "shells
          + greater combat stability of large-caliber guns, less susceptibility to damage - due to their prohibitive dimensions and mass.

          Tower "Mikasa"
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 26 January 2016 12: 34
            0
            Your remarks are reasonable, but, I want to note, they are not entirely fair. The design of the battleships made it possible to fire on board four main guns and four or six medium guns. This was due to the peculiarity of the placement of artillery. Now let's imagine that the artillery was positioned linearly - the hills and all twelve sixteen six-inch guns were able to shoot on one side. Then, with a rate of fire of four rounds per minute, the weight of a minute salvo would be 2.4-3.2 tones. That is comparable to the weight of the side salvo of a "harmoniously" armed battleship of that time. (If we take the combat rate of fire of twelve inches as 2 rounds per minute (which seems a little unrealistic to me), then the side salvo of a battleship of the Borodino class is 3.6 tons. an opportunity, it seems to me, to seriously facilitate the ship.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 15: 02
              +4
              Quote: tchoni
              Now imagine that the artillery was positioned linearly - the hills and all twelve sixteen six-inch guns got the opportunity to shoot on one side

              You can still in the stern area for a helicopter with atomic depth charges. What are you laughing at? There were no atomic depth bombs? So the linear-elevated scheme in those years passed by the category of atomic depth bombs. Have not invented it yet.
              Quote: tchoni
              Now imagine that the artillery was positioned linearly - the hills and all twelve sixteen six-inch were able to shoot on one side. Then, at a rate of four shots per minute, the weight of a volley of a minute would be equal to 2.4-3.2 tones

              What the enemy would absolutely give a damn about.
              1) In the era of the RYAV, artillery in 152-mm could not drown not only a battleship - a large armored cruiser. The power of the projectile was simply not enough. “Oleg” and “Aurora” got a bunch of hits in Tsushima, but what's the point? The armor-piercing capacity of a 6-inch projectile is negligible, and a high-explosive battleship of the "Tsesarevich" or "Mikasa" type cannot be sunk even in principle.
              2) You completely in vain measure the power of a ship by the weight of a minute volley. Such an approach makes sense only when the accuracy of the compared ships is approximately equivalent. But if you look at the statistics of hits of the nuclear weapons (and the US-Spanish), you will see that the large-caliber guns are ORDERED more accurately. Those. in the same RNE, the percentage of shells that hit the total number of 305-mm guns fired reached (or even exceeded) 10%, but for six-inch shells it hung around one percent. Those. with an equal minute salvo, an adversary with 305 mm cannons will bring 10 times more metal into your ship than you will to it.
              3) Forget about the rate of fire of 4 rounds per minute for tower 152 mm. 1,5-2,5 - the maximum. Just because they still didn’t know how to make towers for shooters, so the six-inch tower sokstrelnost 'ranged from one to three rounds / min. High rate of fire was achieved by CASEMAT six-inch ones, and you won’t put the casemates linearly up :))
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 26 January 2016 09: 24
      0
      Quote: tchoni
      In this regard, the question arises: why such cruisers described in the article appeared only closer to WWII, and did not precede the "Dreadnought"
      Because, Eugene, the American "Brooklyn" appeared only because the Japanese "Mogami" appeared as a counterweight to it. About "Mogami" the article says - "Mogami - Eastern Trick", the cunning Japanese just pretended to be building a" light "cruiser, initially wanting to have heavy cruisers. At the right time, the Japanese replaced the 155 mm three-gun turrets with two-gun 203 mm, and, woo-a-la," with a slight movement of the hand ", the light the cruiser (like the entire series) turned into a heavy one.However, there was a problem with the loads, which made itself felt after.The Yankees did not become so perverted, left everything as planned, especially since their economic power allowed riveting any new ships As for the six-inch guns from the Russo-Japanese period, the topic of making them the main caliber for battleships was discussed only after the victory of the Japanese fleet over the Chinese, further, no one was seriously going to experiment so radically. Moreover, our Admiral Makarov was a supporter of the largest cannons for linear combat, and, more on the ship, in fact foreseeing in this idea what was embodied on the Dreadnought (again, following the results of the naval battles of the Russian-Japanese war). Mogami "with 155 mm guns.
    3. AK64
      AK64 26 January 2016 11: 32
      +1
      In this regard, the question arises: why such cruisers described in the article appeared only closer to WWII, and did not precede the "Dreadnought

      What is the purpose of such a cruiser? Is it to put it in line? So drown him, low-armored in a line ...
      Or "battleship without 12 inches"?

      The appointment of cruisers before and after the REV is (1) a squadron reconnaissance officer, (2) a Trade Destroyer, (3) a trade guard. For which of these three goals do you need such karap?

      (In fact, I don’t understand why he was needed even before WWII)
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 26 January 2016 12: 38
        0
        By appointment, I will say this: the Japanese put the cruiser in line and did not lose. Such a ship could fulfill the function of a class of battle cruisers, taking advantage of speed, seize the initiative in battle. Which the Japanese did at one time, each time imposing a battle on the Russian squadron according to its own rules.
        1. AK64
          AK64 26 January 2016 16: 27
          +1
          What "cruisers"? Are you talking about the Asamavid, or what? So this is not a cruiser in the normal sense, it is "a cheap under-battleship for savages." Compare at least its autonomy / cruising range with Russian armored cruisers: that's half!
          It was junk and was released as an ersatz armadillo.

          And nothing such a miracle-judo (neither the Japanese Asam, nor the miracle proposed by you) would be able in a normal adequate linear battle, except to drown heroically (well, or run away).

          In Tsushima, the whole battle essentially boiled down to the battle of four Borodino-type EDBs with four Japanese EDBs. All the rest .... were present at that.

          I will say more: even the PMV battlecruisers as a class raise doubts about their rationality.

          To make it even clearer to you: the Russian armored cruisers were worth ... almost like a normal full-fledged EDB. And with the content, it’s just practically one-on-one for the price. But only two EDBs in the Far East in 1904 would be much more useful than all five armored cruisers in the theater. This is when saving money.

          I'm not talking about under-armadillos like Peresvet and the same type
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 17: 12
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            To make it even clearer to you: Russian armored cruisers were worth ... almost like a normal full-fledged EDB

            In my opinion, even more expensive
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2016 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: tchoni
      In this regard, the question arises: why such cruisers described in the article appeared only closer to WWII, and did not precede the "Dreadnought"

      In fact, 6 "cruisers were actively built before the RYA. Only the location of the artillery was mainly deck or casemate, and not purely tower (paradox, but according to the experience of the same" Heroes ", the towers had a lower rate of fire).
      Suffice it to recall the British "Diadems" (11,2 kt, 16 * 152-mm) and "Kents" (9,8 kt, 14 * 152-mm).
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 26 January 2016 12: 40
        0
        But thanks to the open location of artillery, they were not very resistant to combat damage. And the casemate - complicated and significantly limited the maneuver by fire.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2016 14: 07
          +2
          Quote: tchoni
          But thanks to the open location of artillery, they were not very resistant to combat damage. And the casemate - complicated and significantly limited the maneuver by fire.

          And purely tower-like they would be too big and expensive. 6-8 twin turrets ... this is some kind of "mini-blucher".
          Three-gun towers - this is after the REV.

          Moreover, KRL is a consumable material of the war. These are not "big pots" that are cared for and cherished, but workhorses, which are needed a lot and, preferably, cheaper. Vaughn, by WWII, the former armored decks generally dried up to type C and D KRLs with 5-6 * 152-mm.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 26 January 2016 14: 22
            0
            Consumable, maybe expendable. But in the composition, say, of the Vladivostok detachment of cruisers was the armored cruiser Russia: 12 thousand tons, 16 six-inch, 4 eight-inch. And a bunch of all kinds of different little things. At the same time, only half of this artillery is working on board. To place this six-inch artillery in the towers, albeit eight - would have received a ship very solid in terms of combat potential. Much more resistant to combat damage than the original cruiser with an open installation of guns on the deck, surpassing any of the existing battleships in speed and equal to them in the weight of a minute salvo.
            1. AK64
              AK64 26 January 2016 16: 36
              +1
              in, say, the Vladivostok detachment of cruisers was the armored cruiser Russia: 12 thousand tons, 16 six-inch, 4 eight-inch. And a bunch of all kinds of different little things. At the same time, only half of this artillery is working on board. To place this six-inch artillery in the towers, albeit eight - would have received a ship very solid in terms of combat potential. Much more resistant to combat damage than the original cruiser with an open installation of guns on the deck, surpassing any of the existing battleships in speed and equal to them in the weight of a minute salvo.

              Issue price: invent and arrange the production of a steam turbine about 10 years before the EEC, invent and set up the production of steam tube boilers about ten years before the EEC, invent electric welding and put it into widespread use at least in the shipbuilding industry at least five years before the EEC, introduce oil as ship fuel five years before the REV - and everything will be for you.
              And without this, I'm sorry, you won’t succeed. Without this, you will have maximum (unnecessary and harmful) Russia.

              It is of little use and harmful because at the price it is like a normal full-fledged EDB. But you won’t put him in a line: they’ll drown him, sir. But you can drive a merchant woman even on the armless one with no less success.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 26 January 2016 16: 58
                0
                Those. for three armored cruisers for the Vladivostok detachment, the Russians had enough money, but instead of putting open guns on the deck of 8 two-gun towers, was it not enough?
                A two-gun turret for a six-inch gun was known and worked out by that time, see Project "Borodino"
                What does the turbine have to do with it? I'm talking about the rational deployment of weapons for the cruiser.
                Take the same "Russia", what prevented the placement of two groups of three twin-gun turrets on the cruiser's tank and quarterboard?
                I assured you that having a two hundred-mile-meter belt in line, this cruiser wouldn’t drown so quickly. At least with the less powerful Japanese cruisers, this did not happen.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 17: 10
                  0
                  Quote: tchoni
                  A two-gun turret for a six-inch gun was known and worked out by that time, see Project "Borodino"

                  Dear, well, do not take it for work and look through at least some literature on the issue. When did Rossiya go into operation? "Thunderbolt" - when? And the first battleship of the Borodino type?
                  Quote: tchoni
                  Take the same "Russia", what prevented the placement of two groups of three twin-gun turrets on the cruiser's tank and quarterboard?

                  1) a linearly elevated circuit does not exist
                  2) What is "stability" have you heard?
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 26 January 2016 17: 22
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    1) a linearly elevated circuit does not exist
                    2) What is "stability" have you heard?

                    Someone really wants "Furutaku" in RIF in RYAV. smile
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 20: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Someone really wants "Furutaku" in RIF in RYAV

                      So this is to us, on alternative history fellow laughing
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. AK64
                    AK64 26 January 2016 17: 32
                    +1
                    Do not be so caustic, please explain calmly.
                    Just remember that your interlocutor may be a child, or a girl.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2016 20: 31
                      0
                      Quote: AK64
                      Just remember that your interlocutor may be a child, or a girl.

                      Yes, even a pregnant transvestite. I, unlike you, do not share interlocutors by age or gender laughing
                      Quote: AK64
                      explain calmly please

                      I calmly explained the comments above. And if a person continues to persist in his delusions, then a share of healthy malice will not harm him
                  3. tchoni
                    tchoni 26 January 2016 22: 32
                    0
                    Exists. This is when artillery is placed in the center plane of the ship in several levels. The authorship belongs, in my opinion, to the Americans with their "Michigan"
                    As for stability, I think that it will not suffer much, because the weight of one six-inch two gun turret is unlikely to exceed 100 tons. And the total weight of even eight towers is unlikely to exceed the weight of a citadel, such as, say, on "Navarino" or eight towers of the same "Borodino". By the way, he has two out of eight quite an adult caliber.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 27 January 2016 10: 13
                      +1
                      As for stability, I think that it will not suffer much, because the weight of one six-inch two gun turret is unlikely to exceed 100 tons. And the total weight of even eight towers is unlikely to exceed the weight of a citadel, such as, say, on "Navarino" or eight towers of the same "Borodino". By the way, he has two out of eight quite an adult caliber.

                      Judging by what was written, you still want a battleship with a bunch of 152mm guns instead of the normal 12 ".
                      Well, you have already been told that the effect on the target of the 6 "projectile even in WWII, not to mention the RYAV, was extremely small and insufficient to drown something.
                      And the armor-piercing capability of 6 "is just ridiculous.

                      Compare: the Russian 12 "armor-piercing projectile contained about 25 kg of explosives. While in the semi-armor-piercing (in fact, high-explosive, but with a bottom fuse) 6" only 3 kg of explosives!
                      Well, what are you going to blow up 3 kg there?

                      And RYAV fully confirmed this fact - that's why they removed these 6 "from the battleships completely.

                      Remember how many shells Rurik received on August 1 (in his last battle). And Rurik got 8 ", not a pitiful 6"!
                      But Rurik drowned from the open kingstones.
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 27 January 2016 10: 22
                      +1
                      Quote: tchoni
                      And about stability, I think that it will not suffer much, because the weight of one six-inch two gun turret is unlikely to go beyond 100 tons.

                      150 tons she weighs.
                      Quote: tchoni
                      And the total weight of even eight towers is unlikely to exceed the weight of a citadel, such as, say, on "Navarino" or eight towers of the same "Borodino".

                      The Citadel is at the waterline. And the 150-ton towers are on the upper deck. And even higher - in the linearly elevated version, at least the middle towers of the bow and stern groups should rise above the outer ones (see "Takao" or "Furutaka").
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 27 January 2016 13: 07
                        +2
                        Quote: tchoni
                        And about stability, I think that it will not suffer much, because the weight of one six-inch two gun turret is unlikely to go beyond 100 tons.


                        150 tons she weighs.

                        What is this? The one on Brooklyn or the one on Borodino?
                        The one that in Brooklyn is even a bit more: from 155 to 170 metric tons, while the protection is not God knows what: 6 "barbet and 6.5" forehead. (The roof and sides are negligible.) On Clevelands, the same tower reached 176 metric tons.

                        For KL, this seems to be adequate, but our dear friend wants to stand in line :) :) :)
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 27 January 2016 13: 40
                        +3
                        Quote: AK64
                        What is this? The one on Brooklyn or the one on Borodino?

                        These are "Bogatyrskaya" and "Borodinskaya".
                        Data from the Tsushima discussions, when they considered the possibility of rearmament of the Bogatyr with the replacement of the native 152-mm turrets with 203-mm ones of the Bayan type.
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 27 January 2016 14: 10
                        0
                        These are "Bogatyrskaya" and "Borodinskaya".

                        Thank you.

                        Well, since our dear colleague wants 3x152 (and not 2x152 like on Borodino residents), he will have at least 200t. Which is consistent with the 170t Bucklin and Cleveland.

                        Data from the Tsushima discussions, when they considered the possibility of rearmament of the Bogatyr with the replacement of the native 152-mm turrets with 203-mm ones of the Bayan type.

                        IMHO, there is no sound idea: homogeneous artillery, in the sense of a single caliber, is much easier to control.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 14: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        IMHO, there is no sound idea: homogeneous artillery, in the sense of one caliber, is much easier to control

                        You would be absolutely right if it were not for one extremely dirty nuance - the turret mounts of the 152-mm guns of our Bogatyrs were so different from their deck and casemate ones that even the vertical guidance angles had to be set different (!!!) I’m silent about different rates of fire ... that is why the artillery officers complained that in order to organize fire with all the guns, in fact, TWO artillery officers were required, one of whom would have calculated the central control for the towers and the second for the deck and casemate guns.
                        Therefore, from the point of view of fire control, rearmament on a 203 mm turret would not worsen anything, but the firepower of the ship increased greatly
                      5. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 27 January 2016 15: 53
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        IMHO, there is no sound idea: homogeneous artillery, in the sense of a single caliber, is much easier to control.

                        The problems with the towers of the "Bogatyrs" were described in detail by uv. Andrey is from Chelyabinsk.
                        I’ll add that the proposal to replace the towers 2 * 2 * 152 with 2 * 1 * 203 was put forward in real time at the Black Sea Fleet in 1915:
                        The experience of the January 14 chase again forced the Cahul commander to raise the question of the need to strengthen our cruisers with more powerful long-range artillery. When chasing with an advantage in speed of 1 knot, our cruisers because of increased by 6 cab., According to the laws of mechanics, the firing range of the fodder guns of the outgoing enemy (assuming the ballistic properties of the 150 mm guns installed on it are the same with the 152 mm guns of the Russian fleet) should have been for as long as 40 minutes. rapprochement be “under impunity execution”. And such a situation during one battle could be repeated even several times in cases of temporary lag due to any damage. “For the reality of the chase results,” the Cahul commander considered it necessary to have at least two 203 mm guns on the ship. When installing such guns, the captain of the 1st rank S. S. Pogulyaev emphasized, the meeting of the cruiser even with “Goeben” would not have “that offensive, heavy character of complete defenselessness”, on which a ship armed with only six-inch guns is doomed.

                        A comprehensive justification for the need for such a replacement with the calculation of the load was carried out in May 1916 by the flagship artilleryman of the headquarters of the head of the cruisers brigade, Senior Lieutenant A. G. Magnus. The reason for this was the inconvenience that appeared to use their turret guns on cruisers, which had so much hope. The experience of the war unconditionally confirmed that both sighting and massive fire to defeat with the greatest efficiency provided only volley fire. It turned out, however, that it was impossible to conduct volley fire jointly (centrally) with turret and deck guns. This was due to their different rate of fire due to differences in the aiming methods themselves; more complex adjustment of turret firing due to scattering of shells caused by their rotation; differences in corrections in firing control due to the use of sights of different types; different firing ranges at fire to defeat due to the inability of tower elevators to deliver shells with ballistic tips.

                        The alternation of sighting salvos of tower guns with salvos of deck guns was also practically impracticable: the towers required test volleys and they needed a special firing manager.
                        (c) R.M. MELNIKOV. CRUISER “GLASSES”
                      6. AK64
                        AK64 27 January 2016 16: 21
                        0
                        The problems with the towers of the "Bogatyrs" were described in detail by uv. Andrey is from Chelyabinsk.


                        Bastards these Germans, what ...
                  4. The comment was deleted.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 13: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: AK64
                  What is this? The one on Brooklyn or the one on Borodino?

                  If memory serves me right (and if it does, I wonder with whom?) laughing then the mass of the Borodino tower was 62 tons - but without the weight of the guns themselves, without the weight of the armor, without the weight of the feed mechanisms and, accordingly, without the armor of the feed pipes (that is, without a barbette). Well, with this aforementioned mass just, perhaps, will be 150 tons
          2. tchoni
            tchoni 26 January 2016 22: 37
            -1
            And here are the dates of commissioning? Is the Borodino project the first ship in the world to employ medium-caliber artillery turrets? On the same "Russia", eight-inches are placed in the towers. What's stopping you from repeating the six-inch trick?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 January 2016 13: 42
              +1
              Quote: tchoni
              On the same "Russia", eight-inches are placed in the towers.

              Maybe you meant "Bayan"?
              Because all three BrKR of the Vladivostok detachment had a casemate arrangement of 203 mm and 152 mm guns. Or generally open.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2016 17: 17
          +1
          Quote: tchoni
          Those. for three armored cruisers for the Vladivostok detachment, the Russians had enough money, but instead of putting open guns on the deck of 8 two-gun towers, was it not enough?
          A two-gun turret for a six-inch gun was known and worked out by that time, see Project "Borodino"
          What does the turbine have to do with it? I'm talking about the rational deployment of weapons for the cruiser.

          Have you read Melnikov? A variant of a turret cruiser was and was considered by the MTK before the Thunderbolt was laid down. And was buried - since the industry was busy above the roof orders for the 152-mm SK turret for Borodintsev.
          An armored cruiser with a turret GK and SK was built only after the war. And then I had to order it from Vickers.
          Quote: tchoni
          Take the same "Russia", what prevented the placement of two groups of three twin-gun turrets on the cruiser's tank and quarterboard?

          Think for yourself:
          152 mm:
          Deck AC: The total weight of the machine without a gun is 6 kg, with a gun - 290 kg.
          Deck AC with a shield: The weight of the machine without a gun is 9 kg, with a gun - 992 kg.
          Tower for 2 * 152: Total installation weight 150 kg.

          6 towers - plus 900 tons, concentrated in the extremities (and for the most part - at the level of the upper deck). Instead, removed 256 tons along the entire length of the ship. At the same time, the armor of the casemates can not be removed - it protects the board from HEs. Oh yes. You still need to find a place in the hull for 6 turret rooms with 3 decks down.
          Load distribution, general and local strength of the body, weakened by six cuts, reinforcements, stability, volumes ...

          I understand that you want a furutaku. smile But without turbines, it’s utopia. To put the towers and stay in an acceptable displacement (and also allocate volumes under the towers), you need to reduce other loads.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 27 January 2016 08: 53
            -2
            All that you say is a completely solvable engineering problem. The same turret rooms for six-inch can not be lowered on three decks, and ammunition placed in a barbet. The citadel, in this case, absolutely does not protect anything. It can be cut very well in height. Etc . etc. add eight-inch removed from the upper deck to your weight calculation - it’s not very scary.
            The lack of a tower cruiser, it seems to me, is by no means connected with the workload of the factories, but with the concept of using the cruiser that prevailed at that time. The concept of a battlecruiser in those years did not exist, and the cruiser’s task was to hunt for merchants. Whom to drive - deck artillery for the eyes. It is not clear why, in this case, armor is needed.
            I did not understand your obstinacy with the turbine, as a mandatory attribute of a battle cruiser. What is its concept? - the ability to defeat any cruiser and escape from any battleship. The speed of the fastest battleships of that time was 18-18.5 knots. 19-20 knots would be enough for a battle cruiser of that time. The same "Russia" in the passport gives out 19.5 knots. What else do you want?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 January 2016 10: 44
              +2
              Quote: tchoni
              All that you say is a completely solvable engineering problem. The same turret rooms for six-inch can not be lowered on three decks, and ammunition placed in a barbet.

              Can. You can store it at all in the tower.
              Do you seriously want to make the cellar above the armored deck? And abandon the isolation of cellars from the turret? Especially when booking 152 mm towers?
              Quote: tchoni
              The citadel, in this case, absolutely does not protect anything. It can be cut very well in height.

              Gorgeous. We get a self-propelled target for land mines. The slightest tilt - and holes above the citadel enter the water ... with a predictable result.
              Quote: tchoni
              The lack of a tower cruiser, it seems to me, is by no means connected with the workload of the factories, but with the concept of using the cruiser that prevailed at that time. The concept of a battlecruiser in those years did not exist, and the cruiser’s task was to hunt for merchants.

              Um ... actually, there were reconnaissance cruisers at that time. An "armored reconnaissance aircraft with a squadron" with two towers was even built - and became part of 1 TOE.
              Quote: tchoni
              I did not understand your obstinacy with the turbine, as a mandatory attribute of a battle cruiser. What is its concept? - the ability to defeat any cruiser and escape from any battleship. The speed of the fastest battleships of that time was 18-18.5 knots. 19-20 knots would be enough for a battle cruiser of that time. The same "Russia" in the passport gives out 19.5 knots. What else do you want?

              I need your 6 "tower cruiser to be able to get away from at least a couple of" Asamoids "with their 21 nodes.
              And also - from the high-speed heirs of "Vaccanto" from "Occupanto". Because you should not fall into the first mistake of the alternative and assume that if Russia builds a 6 "tower CD, the rest of the countries will not react to this. The logical answer would be an order by the same Japan instead of the" asamoids "of more powerful and protected" anti- speed.
            2. AK64
              AK64 27 January 2016 10: 55
              0
              Somewhere my long answer disappeared. Spam, they say ...

              Sorry, I will not repeat: remain in your ignorance, since you do not even want to read what you ALREADY wrote
        3. AK64
          AK64 26 January 2016 17: 28
          0
          Those. for three armored cruisers for the Vladivostok detachment, the Russians had enough money,

          So from stupidity it is! Solely from stupidity. There, in general, the wobble of the shipbuilding program is not a good idea: they could not determine the type of EDB, and built it as a result of everything ... And this despite the fact that role models already quite existed. Then they started saving money. Then they started to spend them ... A nightmare, in short.

          By the way, in addition to three in Vladik, there was also the Bayan in Arthur.


          and to put instead of open guns on the deck of 8 two-gun towers was not enough?

          Well, to make it clearer for you: the tower is better only under two conditions, and when they are together: (1) automated loading and (2) central control system. The first appeared only to WWII (and even then in the "advanced" ones), and three times only to WWII (again, only 2-3 countries could have built this on their own)

          and if without these conditions, then choose a casemate.

          A two-gun turret for a six-inch gun was known and worked out by that time, see Project "Borodino"

          Excess weight, excess price, reduced metacentric height, and reduced rate of fire are the result. Do we really need it?

          What does the turbine have to do with it? I'm talking about the rational deployment of weapons for the cruiser.


          Yes, despite the fact that cylinders are overweight in comparison. Here at the same time.

          Take the same "Russia", what prevented the placement of two groups of three twin-gun turrets on the cruiser's tank and quarterboard?

          WHAT FOR? I would say more: who in general needed that Russia?

          But as for the towers: Price is higher, stability is lower, rate of fire is lower, weight is higher ... Where are the benefits?
          Without automation in loading and SLA this is pointless.

          I assured you that having a two hundred-mile-meter belt in line, this cruiser wouldn’t drown so quickly. At least with the less powerful Japanese cruisers, this did not happen.

          They simply didn’t shoot at the Japs: there was no one to shoot at them. Borodinians were beating Mikasa, and Sisoya was already taking part in the battle ... Already even he couldn’t shoot properly.

          But compare how much Borodino or Suvorov survived under fire, and how much Oslyabya. But your "project" looks weaker Oslyabya ... Not to mention the fact that the damage from 152mm rounds is more cosmetic ... (It was originally calculated as "destroying unarmored superstructures, etc." - but even this not very good for 152mm)
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 January 2016 17: 42
            +3
            Quote: AK64
            So from stupidity it is! Solely from stupidity. There, in general, the wobble of the shipbuilding program is not a good idea: they could not determine the type of EDB, and built it as a result of everything ... And this despite the fact that role models already quite existed. Then they started saving money. Then they started to spend them ... A nightmare, in short.

            He-he-he ... Do you remember how, instead of another EBR, you decided to build "guarded battleship"- received BRBO" General-Admiral Apraksin. " ICH, which was not used anywhere else, won only 2 tons (254 tons instead of 40 in the two-gun).
            But there was also a trinity "Gangut" - "Emperor Alexander II" - "Emperor Nicholas I" ... an epic with the design of the latter and the choice of its power plant - this is generally a circus.
            Quote: AK64
            But compare how much Borodino or Suvorov survived under fire, and how much Oslyabya. But your "project" looks weaker than Oslyabya ...

            Uh-huh ... but he will most likely meet with the "Asamoids". Which have 4 * 203 mm and 6-7 * 152 mm on board. Moreover, given the weakness of the domestic industry and the eternal budget constraints, the enemy's asamoids, as in real life, will be twice as large.
          2. tchoni
            tchoni 27 January 2016 08: 57
            -1
            The tower, my dear, is protection against fragments. The ability to put the cruiser in line. This is an opportunity, unlike the citadel, a wider maneuver by fire. The ability to effectively use the ship.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 January 2016 10: 53
              +2
              Quote: tchoni
              The tower, my dear, is protection against fragments. The ability to put the cruiser in line.

              Uh-huh ... "Asama" and "Izumo" seem to hint - what will happen to the CD, put in line. smile
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 27 January 2016 16: 45
                -3
                And the Russian squadron at Tsushima hints as if what will happen to those who do not put the cruiser in line and turn out to be slower than the enemy ..
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 16: 59
                +1
                Quote: tchoni
                And the Russian squadron at Tsushima hints as if what will happen to those who do not put the cruiser in line and turn out to be slower than the enemy ..

                This phrase of yours is not just hinting - it is just screaming that you need to urgently learn the materiel. For a million reasons - for example, because the Japanese cruisers achieved practically nothing in the line, but at the same time they repeatedly found themselves close by in the Big Troubles, because the speed of some Japanese armored cruisers did not exceed, or even inferior to, the Japanese battleships, and finally, because Based on the results of the Tsushima battle, an UNIVERSAL conclusion was made about the priority of large-caliber guns and the complete unsuitability of six-inch guns as the second caliber for battleships laughing
              3. tchoni
                tchoni 27 January 2016 17: 44
                -1
                You need to teach materiel. They came to the concept of "All Big Gun" much earlier than Tsushima, for the first ship subordinate to her was commissioned during the Tsushima battle. (I'm talking about Dreadnought born in 1905).
                And, if we are talking about the results of tsushima, then such wonderful things as "Andrew the First-Called" and companions appeared. And there, at least eat the middle artillery.
              4. AK64
                AK64 27 January 2016 17: 54
                +1
                You need to teach materiel. They came to the concept of "All Big Gun" much earlier than Tsushima, for the first ship subordinate to her was commissioned during the Tsushima battle. (I'm talking about Dreadnought born in 1905).
                And, if we are talking about the results of tsushima, then such wonderful things as "Andrew the First-Called" and companions appeared. And there, at least eat the middle artillery.

                The dreadnought has just begun to build in OCTOBER 1905. The project began in 1905.
                It is according to the results of the RYA. (True, not so much Tsushima as the previous actions: the British perfectly saw that the Russians 6 "to the Japanese battleships like an elephant a grain of grain)
                Moreover, the Dreadnought is an urgent project, when the predecessors were just ... sent unfinished.

                The first-called and Paul the 1st laid in the summer of 1904. It is impossible to say that this is the result of the REV - this is an OLD project at that time. But the Russians simply could not do a new project.
                The RYAV experience in the First-Called is like replacing your favorite 6 "cannons with much more powerful 8" guns.
              5. The comment was deleted.
              6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 19: 45
                0
                Quote: tchoni
                You need to teach materiel. They came to the concept of "All Big Gun" much earlier than Tsushima, for the first ship subordinate to her was commissioned during the Tsushima battle. (I'm talking about Dreadnought born in 1905).

                Well, if the Dreadnought was born in 1905, then yes, it’s time for me to learn the materiel wassat
                You know, I got excited with the materiel. Where to teach you materiel if you have not yet learned to read. What did I write?
                Quote: tchoni
                It was precisely on the basis of the results of the Tsushima battle that an UNIVERSAL conclusion was drawn about the priority of large-caliber guns and the complete unsuitability of six-inch guns as the second caliber for battleships

                What does all big gang have to do with it? I wrote about the priority of large-caliber guns, because heavy and / or decisive armored damage was inflicted by them, but 6-dm did not justify itself. Therefore, in the future, almost all countries abandoned the 6-dm, moving to larger (203-254-mm) medium caliber.
                At the same time, the need for a transition to at least 203 mm was visible to many even before the REV (such projects were also in the Russian Navy), but it was REV in general and Tsushima in particular that dotted i.
              7. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 January 2016 10: 31
                +1
                Quote: tchoni
                You need to teach materiel. They came to the concept of "All Big Gun" much earlier than Tsushima, for the first ship subordinate to her was commissioned during the Tsushima battle. (I'm talking about Dreadnought born in 1905).
                And, if we are talking about the results of tsushima, then such wonderful things as "Andrew the First-Called" and companions appeared. And there, at least eat the middle artillery.

                The answer in the style of Bader is very weighty and half a meter past. (c) ABS

                First, the concept of the all-big-gun-ship really came before Tsushima. But not British, but Yankees. And if it were not for the butting with Congress about funding, "Michigan" could be the first.

                Secondly, “Andrei” was not the result of Tsushima. It was just an "improved Borodino", the main performance characteristics of which were adopted in January 1903 - before RYAV! And these performance characteristics already featured 8 "SK:
                Displacement was allowed no more than 16 tons, speed no less than 500 knots, deepening in normal cargo not more than 19 feet (26 m).
                4 305-mm 40-caliber guns in two rotating turrets were defended in the same way as on Borodino, that is, the armor of the rotating parts was 254 mm, and the permanent ones were 229-178-102 mm. Twelve 203 mm 50-caliber guns stood in six towerswhich had rotating parts of 178 mm armor in the front half and 152 mm in the rear. The barbets of these towers, like those on Borodino, were 152 and 104 mm thick. The rest of the artillery consisted of 20 75-mm semi-automatic guns, just as protected, as on Borodino, by 76-mm armor. In addition to them, the ship had 20 more 47-mm semi-automatic, 5 75-mm landing guns and 8 machine guns.
          3. AK64
            AK64 27 January 2016 17: 42
            +1
            And the Russian squadron at Tsushima hints as if what will happen to those who do not put the cruiser in line and turn out to be slower than the enemy ..

            You have two errors in one sentence.
            Pervay: the speed of the cruisers in no way can accelerate the squadron speed.
            You see, the speed of a squadron is not the average mathematical speed of its ships. This is the speed of the slowest, minus 2 knots. (Minus 2 knots - because of evolution.) So put the cruiser in line, or don’t - the squadron speed will not increase it.

            The second mistake: You are surprisingly stubborn and unable to read even what has already been written to you. (Or am I in an emergency?) The Japanese "non-armored carriers" WERE NOT cruisers (although they were called that) - they were exactly the non-armored carriers. And the sense from them in the Tsushima battle was only that they opposed Oslyabya (Oslyabya is just a full-fledged armored cruiser!).

            So this is exactly the fate of Oslyaby - this is the "cruiser in line".
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 January 2016 10: 23
            +1
            Quote: tchoni
            And the Russian squadron at Tsushima hints as if what will happen to those who do not put the cruiser in line and turn out to be slower than the enemy ..

            The speed of the squadron is determined by the speed of the slowest ship.
            You can even put "pebbles" in the line - all the same, the squadron will not go faster than "sisoy" or "Borodino".
      2. AK64
        AK64 27 January 2016 17: 48
        +1
        The tower, my dear, is protection against fragments. The ability to put the cruiser in line. This is an opportunity, unlike the citadel, a wider maneuver by fire. The ability to effectively use the ship.

        Of course, you will excuse me, but the boats are not drowning from the fragments, but from the fact that their freeboard is collapsing.
        And since the citadel "interferes" with you, then your freeboard will be destroyed ... faster than it was destroyed at Oslyaby. With the same consequence.

        Given that the metacentric height is higher than that of Oslyabya, you’ll go under the water much faster and more spectacularly (for the audience)
  • metallic
    metallic 26 January 2016 11: 42
    +5
    Argentinean ships cut the ocean with the intention of circling the Falklands and taking the British “in ticks”.

    The author, if you wrote this nonsense - at least you did not lay out the diagram ... It is clear that "Belgrano" with the accompaniment was already going home.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 26 January 2016 23: 37
      +2
      Quote: metallic
      Argentinean ships cut the ocean with the intention of circling the Falklands and taking the British “in ticks”.

      Quote: metallic
      Author, if you wrote this nonsense

      Historical fact. It is for this that the argi divided their fleet into two squads
      Quote: metallic
      It is clear that the Belgrano was already on its way home with an escort.

      A Belgrano group hung out at Barwood Bank, awaiting orders to launch a massive attack. There Conkorror noticed them from there.

      Or do you think the Argentines are full of degenerates - just to put the fleet into the sea, and for no reason turn back)))) Pacifists, ahaha

      On 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to search for a British task force around the Falkland Islands and launch a "massive attack" the next day. General Belgrano, who was outside and in the southwest of the exclusion zone, was ordered to the southeast.

      Lombardo's signal was intercepted by British intelligence. As a result, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet of War, meeting at Checkers the next day, agreed to the request of Admiral Sir Terence Levin, chief of staff of the defense, to change the rules of participation and allow the attack on General Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. Although the group was outside the British declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at the Cabinet level, Thatcher decided that Commander Chris Brown Wreford should attack General Belgrano.

      -Google Translate
  • metallic
    metallic 26 January 2016 11: 48
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    In fact, I don’t understand why he was needed even before WWII

    They tried to circumvent the contractual limits on the number of heavy cruisers by increasing the number of guns on the lungs: Mogami, Brooklyn and the first version of Belfast.
    1. AK64
      AK64 26 January 2016 11: 54
      +1
      Well, yes, "the answer to the Mogami" (which, however, was an "Asian trick")

      Yes, it’s clear that all these freaks were the result of the Washington / London conference, and it’s rather pointless to look for them.
  • alovrov
    alovrov 26 January 2016 17: 06
    +4
    The Belgrano group, like the northern group, retreated to the coast of Argentina at that time, and did not go at all to destroy the British destroyers. As for the 200 mile zone, only idiots like the Argentines could take the ordinary Anglo-Saxon trick at face value. The Argentines really planned to test what would happen if they entered the 200 mile zone with a cruiser. They paid for their stupidity before they began to implement plans.

    “He (the submarine commander) decided to ask London to change the rules on the use of submarines and for permission to attack a target outside the restricted area, implementing the policy towards Argentina announced on April 23. There was a delay in convening an emergency meeting of the British War Cabinet - it was Sunday. In the afternoon, the Conqueror commander received new rules. They did not apply exclusively to Belgrano, any Argentine ship could be attacked outside the zone, but the Belgrano group was the only one with which the British sub had contact at this time. "

    Read Battle of the Maldives. And the author could be more precise.
  • Denimax
    Denimax 26 January 2016 19: 02
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Personally, I would bet on Belgrano.

    Well, the British were not fools, of course they knew about the forces of the enemy. Therefore, Conqueror was on the heels of Belgrare. But the Argentine flyers were not "adequate" in their actions.)
    1. AK64
      AK64 26 January 2016 20: 09
      0
      But the Argentine flyers were not "adequate" in their actions.)

      Why is this? Just completely (adjusted for circumstances)
      Rather, RC Exocet was "inadequate to the task"
      (And there is an opinion that the French have FICA there)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 January 2016 11: 01
        +2
        Quote: AK64
        Why is this? Just completely (adjusted for circumstances)
        Rather, RC Exocet was "inadequate to the task"
        (And there is an opinion that the French have FICA there)

        This is not the Exocet itself, but the total number of Exocets among the args was inadequate for the task. EMNIP, the Argentines managed to get only 5 aviation anti-ship missiles. With so many, you can't fight much - even a star raid or a massive launch with an overload of air defense cannot be arranged.
        If the args got all 28 "exosets", then the life of RN in the Falklands would be much more eventful and memorable. smile
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 January 2016 22: 04
      -1
      Quote: Denimax
      But the Argentine flyers were not "adequate" in their actions.)

      The flyers carried out a non-aggression pact outside the combat zone.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 January 2016 00: 38
        +1
        Who prevented Argentina from expanding the zone in the direction they needed?
        Nobody interfered: he announced that.

        And after Belgrano they could have been without announcements
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 27 January 2016 01: 00
          -1
          Quote: AK64
          Who prevented Argentina from expanding the zone in the direction they needed?

          An agreement is when several parties have agreed to abide by certain rules.
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 January 2016 11: 08
            +1
            What "treaty" when the war?
            The British announced a 200-mile zone around the Foklands - did they consult Argentina?
            Well, declare in response a zone where it is beneficial to you!

            This is a war, these zones are declared for the safety of THIRD parties
            1. alovrov
              alovrov 27 January 2016 12: 16
              +2
              Don't write nonsense. Once again for those who do not know. Read the book "Battle of the Maldives". The submarine commander had no right to attack Belgrano outside the 200-mile zone. When the British realized that this rule was not beneficial to them, it was quickly canceled. As they do anytime, anywhere.

              “He (the submarine commander) decided to ask London to change the rules on the use of submarines and for permission to attack a target outside the restricted area, implementing the policy towards Argentina announced on April 23. There was a delay in convening an emergency meeting of the British War Cabinet - it was Sunday. In the afternoon, the Conqueror commander received new rules. They did not apply exclusively to Belgrano, any Argentine ship could be attacked outside the zone, but the Belgrano group was the only one with which the British sub had contact at this time. "
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bennert
        Bennert 27 January 2016 05: 52
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        The flyers carried out a non-aggression pact outside the combat zone.

        Was there really a need?

        British ships crowded inside the zone around the islands
        To fly somewhere further into the ocean, to the north-east - there was not enough fuel, it was no coincidence that the AOG kept from the east 100 miles from the islands where the argi did not reach

        Which, however, did not prevent the Argentine Air Force from being based on the continent.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 2 February 2016 00: 44
          0
          Quote: BENNERT
          Was there really a need?

          Quote: Denimax
          But the Argentine flyers were not "adequate" in their actions.

          Denimax expressed himself in the sense that the Argentine pilots did not perform the functions of anti-aircraft defense outside the combat zone, to which I essentially replied that they did not expect an attack from the British outside the zone.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 4 February 2016 11: 04
            0
            they were, as it were, unauthorized by their command outside the zone to drown it. request
  • mvg
    mvg 26 January 2016 21: 37
    0
    Quote: V.ic
    This is almost the diameter of the globe. Buy a globe and pull the thread, describe the circle.

    I'm embarrassed to ask, what does this have to do with it? Why was Bennert's comment so disliked? Did you want to show your upbringing? Or, God forbid, of course, glimpses of the mind?
  • Snzkgb
    Snzkgb 26 January 2016 23: 22
    +2
    Kaptsov again, sleep ** nude, and in almost all paragraphs.
    How lovely.
  • 25ru
    25ru 27 January 2016 05: 43
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, even a pregnant transvestite. I, unlike you, do not share interlocutors by age or gender

    This is "Yes". When I didn’t do it, there you have, I came across the reflections of one young lady (yes with schematics) about how the BrKr "Rurik" - II had to be dazzled, it fell out. You have rare phenomena there. I read, in my spare time, have fun.
    No offense, well fantasy flights need to be tempered drinks
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 January 2016 11: 04
      +1
      Quote: 25ru
      You have rare phenomena dwell there. I read, in my free time, have fun.
      No offense, well fantasy flights need to be tempered

      Pfff ... after the 12 "gatling battleship proposed on old Tsushima, the alternatives history seems bland. laughing
      And what kind of HMS Mahairod was on Tsushima ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2016 12: 40
      +1
      Quote: 25ru
      . You have rare phenomena dwell there.

      There are :))) But there are many quite adequate people
      Quote: 25ru
      there you have, I came across the reflections of one young lady (yes with schematics) about: how it was necessary to blind the BrKr "Rurik" - II, precipitated

      "I don't need drugs at all. I see life as picturesque even without them." laughing
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 27 January 2016 07: 38
    0
    It would be more interesting if the Argentines had slapped Exocet into "KE" 2 - it would have turned out to be a pretty firefighter. Fueling system, lightweight superstructures, cabin trim, boilers, icebergs, 70000 tons and 3500 marines in icy water. This is what I understand - alternative history good
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 January 2016 11: 06
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      It would be more interesting if the Argentines had slapped Exocet into "KE" 2 - it would have turned out to be a pretty firefighter. Fueling system, lightweight superstructures, cabin trim, boilers, icebergs, 70000 tons and 3500 marines in icy water. This is what I understand - alternative history good

      Can do minimal change in story: what would happen if instead of "Atlantic Conveyor" argas hit their main target - AB.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 January 2016 11: 16
        0
        In fact, in hindsight, when analyzing the options, an opinion was expressed (with which I, by the way, strongly agree) that attack would not be worth warships, but supply vessels.

        Well and yes, personal transport of course ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 January 2016 13: 48
          0
          Quote: AK64
          In fact, in hindsight, when analyzing the options, an opinion was expressed (with which I, by the way, strongly agree) that attack would not be worth warships, but supply vessels.

          And the arg drummers will reach them? And will they be able to come back - after all, after the information about the attack, limes will take up all their VTOL aircraft?
          Maybe you should first reduce the number of decks for British IA?
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 January 2016 14: 19
            0
            I don’t remember the details already after years
            But I remember one container ship they banged, and in retrospect the British were very worried about it: this was, as it were, not the most serious threat of the failure of their landing. Well, of course, they were worried about the load, not for the karap. (Although maybe the British lied here: why should they tell the truth?)
            And container ships and tankers are easier to beat than warships.

            But if, as you noticed, the Args had everything about all 5 Exocets, then don’t pull the caftan, but there’s no point. Although container ships can also be conventional conventional weapons: NURs, bombs ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 January 2016 14: 59
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              But I remember one container ship they banged, and in hindsight the British were very worried about it: this was, as it were, not the most serious threat of the failure of their landing.

              So it was not a supply container ship, but an air transport that "worked" with the fleet.
              They shouldn't grieve if the Atlantic Conveyor was the base for 5 Chinooks and 6 Wessexes - all of them, except for one Chinook, burned down along with the transport. This completely killed all plans for "vertical coverage". Plus, it hit the group's supplies (more precisely, the "bottleneck" - the delivery of supplies from ships to the shore and further to combat units).
              Incidentally, the Angles were also lucky that they managed to unload 14 Harriers. smile
              Quote: AK64
              But if, as you noticed, the Args had everything about all 5 Exocets, then don’t pull the caftan, but there’s no point. Although container ships can also be conventional conventional weapons: NURs, bombs ...

              Everything rests on intelligence, central control and refueling. And it will be relatively easy for the first time - then limes will cover supply ships with anti-aircraft missile systems.
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 January 2016 16: 39
                +1
                So it was not a supply container ship, but an air transport that "worked" with the fleet.

                Honestly, I don't remember years ago
                I remember that I was very worried


                Everything rests on intelligence, central control and refueling.

                This is true; with such things, not only the Argentines, but also Russia has a weak spot. And argi dose adjustment is just being mastered

                And it will be relatively easy for the first time - then limes will cover supply ships with anti-aircraft missile systems.

                Well, here’s the ship here, the other there - you look and there won’t be anything left for the operation: they retroactively wrote (the British also wrote) that they then pulled all the battle-worthy ships under the Foklands. All that more or less could not only swim (according to the law of Archimedes), but also to fight.
                In general, this war greatly helped them increase funding for the fleet: we can say it was lucky that Argentina climbed into a bottle
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 27 January 2016 17: 50
    +1
    Of course, if such an art ship is suitable for the range of effective use of its numerous artillery, then for such shells like the British (and all others) the end will come very quickly, but if they let him come up, the question is open. RCC Exoset is not so dangerous for a ship like Belgrano, because of the availability of reservation and constructive readiness to take on the enemy’s influence, it’s not at all clear how Exocet’s warhead will work when it encounters armor and from what angles, whether it will be detonated when it goes into rebound or not and whether it will work when stuck in armor, whether this rocket was tested in armor (navryatli).
    Few people thought that modern ships of such a power as Great Britain! will successfully hammer uncontrolled bombs, but here you are. Therefore, far from everything is clear in the duel of such ships as the art cruiser of World War II and destroyers with frigates 70-80gg
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 27 January 2016 21: 27
      0
      Why? It was therefore assumed and there was a problem with their operation ...
  • Litsvin
    Litsvin 16 February 2016 22: 52
    0
    It's a pity, of course, for the Argentines. If the USSR would have thrown them there, on the Falklands, at least one of our BODs of Project 1134, and preferably two. Would you wipe the nose of these pitiful oatmeal eaters - their boat would go down in history "as the first nuclear submarine to die in a combat situation." And the guns of the main caliber of the Argentine cruiser would have “painted” this whole British surface pack.