Military Review

A fight with a shadow. Innovators and Conservatives

140
A fight with a shadow. Innovators and Conservatives



Remember that the ark was built by an amateur. Professionals built the “Titanic”.

Any work is easy for a person who is not obliged to perform it, therefore this number of inventions belongs to enthusiasts. While the generals are preparing for the past wars, and graduates suggest rejecting “high technical risks,” these people are making progress.

"Everything that could have been invented has already been invented," - Said Charles Dewer, an official of the US Patent Office (1899).

Annoying judgments allowed himself Lord Kelvin, for example, “Aircraft heavier than air impossible” (1895 g.). Two years later, he declared that “Radio has no future”.

Do you remember what the American generals replied to Hyrum Maxim? “Your Maxim Gan is just an impractical toy.”.

Conjuncturists and careerists of all stripes spoiled a lot of useful projects. But miscalculations on the military had especially grave consequences navythat cost the lives of thousands of sailors.

Only true professionals could come up with the concept of the British battlecruiser. Virtually unprotected “tub”, which was to breastfeed on a machine gun fight on equal terms with dreadnoughts. As compensation, measures of active protection were proposed, in the form of increased speed (on 5 nodes compared to conventional LC).

Well, they got their way.


On the left - “Derflinger”, on the right - British “Invincible”


Fate had kept these ships for the time being, but Jutland became the hour of truth for them. One by one, Queen Mary, Invincible and Indifatible took off. Due to the instantaneous death of the British LKR, only a few of the crew managed to escape. Losses varied from 1026 people. on “Invincible” to 1266 on “Queen Mary”.

Needless to say, of all the heavy ships of the British, only three LCRs have fallen victim to the battle?



Practice has confirmed the obvious absurdity of the idea of ​​“speed in exchange for security.”

What was the thought of the one who initiated the construction of “Invincible”? To quickly "push through" the project and put part of the profits in your pocket. What else to think in such positions?

However, that we are all about the British ...

His degenerates were in the Third Reich. The designers of “Blom and Foss” have managed the impossible. With all the necessary tools, modern industry and a wealth of experience in designing large ships, they managed to build the worst heavy cruiser of the pre-war years. The fascists were lucky that they did not fall under the action of the Washington restrictions. Otherwise, their creation could simply not get off the stocks.

Being 1,5 times larger than the “Washingtonians,” the cruiser “Admiral Hipper” was not distinguished by firepower and had the worst security among all American, Japanese and Italian heavy cruisers. In addition, German excrement (not to be confused with experiment!) Had a unique feature. He was falling apart on the move, forcing him to have on board a couple of hundred civilian mechanics, electricians and engineers, bringing the Hipper crew to incredible 1800 people!

The Britons and the Germans were not alone.

An annoying mistake made samurai. Someone from the sons of Amaterasu offered to place oxygen in the unprotected areas on the upper deck of the 24 oxygen “long lance”. Each torpedo contained 490 kg of explosives and a 980 liter cylinder with pure oxygen. As a result, a single hit guaranteed turned the cruiser into a flaming wreck. Thanks to careless storage, the Long Lance caused more damage to the cruisers of the Imperial Navy than to their opponent.



In the design of ships, everything is subject to the requirements of ensuring seaworthiness, stability and other equally important parameters. Extra weight come from nowhere. But the open storage of oxygen torpedoes is something. With such success, you can abandon the cellars and barbets, simply pouring shells on the deck next to the tower.

With a total displacement of 15 thousand tons, the Japanese did not have an additional hundred tons to protect the TA and torpedoes. An important, deadly element of the structure was left in the open, without any protection. And you say: specialists ...


Mikuma after detonation of torpedo ammunition, Midway, 1942


An insane decision cost the lives of Furutake, Mikume, Chokai, Suzue and thousands of their sailors. The only one who was lucky was the heavy cruiser “Mogami”. A couple of hours before the battle, his crew threw all the torpedoes overboard, which made it possible to survive and return to base.

While the Japanese were experimenting with their torpedoes, the French and Italians entered the merciless race for speed. The parameter is important, but not the only one. And no one paid attention that in practice the speed in most cases is determined by the weather, the state of the sea surface, as well as the resource and quality of those. maintenance mechanisms. Therefore, in practice, the promised 40 nodes may not be there. And then it will become clear on what the designers saved: the strength of the power set, seaworthiness, survivability and the composition of the ships' weapons.

After the war ended, their worthy successors replaced the ingenious creators of Invincible and Hipper.

Those who built Sheffield, which burned from an unexploded rocket. Explicit absurdity? And some thought seriously.

Another time, Yemeni barmalei dragged a concrete mixer and mixed 200 with a kilo of ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder (far from the most effective explosive, with a detonation speed of about 4 km / s). They brought the bag to the USS Cole and sent all the infidels to Satan. As a result, not the strongest explosion outside the side of the superspirant for $ 1 billion dollars completely out of order. Neither the local Kevlar defense nor the automatic damage localization system saved it. The hull turned. The loss of the crew “Cole” were equivalent to the losses on the battleship “Eagle” (withstood 76 hits).



And now, when the question is about increasing the security of ships, supporters of the traditional approach propose to seek advice from the creators of “Sheffield” and “Cole”! Yes, you might as well consult a housewife.

Those who designed and those who ordered such ships did not think about anything except personal gain. Traditional approach, minimum technical risks, maximum profit, minimum costs, displacement reserve, the ability to solve all problems in the simplest way.

That's what drives these people. Romance is not there.

In order not to be branded as a militant amateur, it is worth recognizing that any innovation requires careful calculation in its implementation. In particular, this concerns the conversation about the return of armor to ships. The author deliberately does not make bold predictions. Within a series of articles, he indicated only the potential for such a solution and the possible benefits. All further calculations should be carried out by people whose job responsibilities include such tasks. Existing conclusions are drawn from numerous historical examples. If in doubt, turn to the creators of Tone and Mioko, bulky armored ships that could not exist by today's standards.

Enthusiasm does not mean total ignorance. To draw any conclusions, it is necessary at least to get involved in the question and to understand this problem. Finally, common sense and incomprehensible eternal logic. However, all this fades against the incompetence of many "experts". For various reasons, they either have no time or are not at all interested in what they have devoted their lives to. Asking their opinions is useless. They are busy with routine work and are confident that the initiative can be punished. Not to mention the notorious “generals that are preparing for past wars” or “effective managers,” whose only task is to generate profits.

The text was used Kars'a ideas.
Author:
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aba
    aba 18 March 2016 06: 45
    +19
    Remember that the ark was built by an amateur. Professionals built the “Titanic”.

    But if the Titanic is a fait accompli. then the ark is an unproven myth. At least in the form that the majority understands it.
    1. Elk
      Elk 18 March 2016 08: 42
      +13
      The unsinkability of the Titanic was a myth. But Noah just did not drown.
      1. marlin1203
        marlin1203 18 March 2016 09: 14
        +21
        Cognac does not sink! laughing
      2. 19001900
        19001900 21 March 2016 00: 46
        0
        There is more a matter of luck with the iceberg because he did not meet. Who knows what they would meet.
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 22 March 2016 09: 36
        +1
        The existence of the Titanic is a fact. The existence of the ark and Noah himself is a myth.
        That's it, point! All other arguments on the effectiveness of the ark are scholastic arguments "how many demons will fit on the point of a needle."

        For those who are especially educated, let me explain: the "≡" sign is a mathematical sign of equivalence or identity. That is, absolute equality in all possible parameters.
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 March 2016 12: 26
      +16
      In fact, if one strikes into sophism taking a myth for a fact, it is nowhere said that Noah was a layman in the carpentry. But the literacy of God as an engineer is unquestionable by definition.
      1. Fafnir
        Fafnir 18 March 2016 14: 37
        +13
        By the way, yes, they usually forget that the ark was built according to already prepared and lowered from above drawings. laughing
      2. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 19 March 2016 06: 10
        +1
        Quote: Maegrom
        Rђ RІRѕS, literacy of God as an engineer is undeniable a-priory.

        Nor did He know how to count !!!!!
        1,5 million animals and 400 thousand plants have been discovered on Earth so far, which is about 10% of the actual number of species of animals and plants!
        Just list one and a half million animals in ONE day !!!! And then a click of the fingers - and here it is! And then Noah managed three million individuals (at least!) To shove into the ark. And that's not counting the plants!

        In general, hello to non-professionals! Especially to the writers who wrote the Old Testament. Even when you lie, you need to not be burned on trifles. Of course, in an era when less than 0,1% of the population was literate, it is easy to compose the Old Testament and invent the ark. Much easier than calculating and building the Titanic ...
        1. Malkor
          Malkor 20 March 2016 14: 09
          -1
          Oleg Kaptsov was an adviser to Hitler, so he built so many prodigies from enthusiasts)))
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 21 March 2016 22: 00
          0
          Clarifying questions:
          1) Who and how could calculate how many species of living things, not known to science, and therefore not subject to any accountingcould be counted?
          2) How much of this mass like counted species of living creatures are fish, all sorts of pufferfish, mollusks, algae and bacteria, and other organisms that stay in the water during the Great Flood not the slightest inconvenience? fellow
          I mention, by the way, that recently some Nobel Prize nominees stated that 75% of the genome, which they kind of deciphered, is just an information noise, while the expression "nature abhors a vacuum" already known for a long time.
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 22 March 2016 09: 38
        -1
        But the literacy of God as an engineer is unquestionable by definition.
        If one strikes at logic, then the literacy of God as an incomparable creator is a big question.
  2. Ruslan
    Ruslan 18 March 2016 06: 46
    +10
    honestly, in modern times I see no reason to return the armor. although the position of the author is clear to me. modern economics, politics and the military industry do not give a damn about a couple of hundred dead sailors, so no one will worry about it. as they were correctly noted, they are aimed at profit and cost reduction, but not at all at war. therefore, the case of Cole or Sheffield is generally not a reason for them to change their approach to design. large countries are afraid to fight each other, the baboons pose a minimal threat, it will be more difficult and expensive to build them. and what is the profit? only saved the lives of a couple of hundred people in some kind of accident, but as I wrote above, this is not a reason for state organizations.
    1. aba
      aba 18 March 2016 07: 16
      +11
      modern economics, politics and war industry don't give a damn about a couple of hundred dead sailors

      Rather, the point is that by and large it is impossible to increase armor indefinitely - the means of destruction go one step ahead. So it seems more likely that the struggle is on the path to preventing the very fact of hit by the means of destruction at the target.
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 18 March 2016 07: 31
        +3
        Well, in principle, I agree with this, with modern reb, it is not known at all how many missiles will hit. but this does not exclude my option, but complements it.
      2. Santa Fe
        18 March 2016 07: 48
        -7
        Quote: aba
        means of destruction go one step ahead

        One step ahead?

        Come on. What did they come up with from the time of a large-caliber armor-piercing projectile? with the same penetrating and destructive ability (mass of hundreds of kg, supersonic, 98% of mass - solid metal). Super-penetrator, capable of leading under a hole deep into the hull, passing through all the armor plates and bulkheads a couple of tens of kg of explosives
        + the formation after the explosion of such a shell of heavy multi-kilogram fragments, which also destroyed everything in its path, through mechanisms and bulkheads

        At the same time, even monster shells did not always cope. Seidlitz returned to base with 20 wounds + torpedo hit
        1. Riv
          Riv 18 March 2016 08: 31
          +3
          Well, they came up with a lot of things. On experimental railguns, for example, a projectile speed of about 10 kilometers per second has been achieved. True, a shell weighs a couple of grams and can fly in the atmosphere no more than three meters (it is heated by friction against the air and evaporates). But dashing trouble began ...
          1. Santa Fe
            18 March 2016 08: 59
            0
            Quote: Riv
            On experimental railguns, for example, a projectile speed of the order of 10 kilometers per second has been achieved

            The railgun is inferior in power and destructive power to large-caliber shells

            speed doesn't matter here. and even harms - an 10 km / s disc will pierce the ship through, that's all you will achieve. Small-caliber blanks do not have enough mass and explosive content to cause serious damage
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 18 March 2016 09: 59
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              speed doesn't matter here. and even harms - a disc of 10 km / s will pierce the ship through, that's all you will achieve.

              It will not just break through, and a huge amount of thermal energy is released - a thermal explosion!
              1. Santa Fe
                18 March 2016 10: 10
                -5
                Quote: Bayonet
                a huge amount of thermal energy is released - a thermal explosion!

                What are you really
                due to what, then, should it be released if the bulk of the energy flies further along with the blank
                1. Bayonet
                  Bayonet 18 March 2016 12: 00
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  What are you really

                  Truth. Teach physics! At speeds of 4 kilometers per second and higher, the shell does not need any explosives, because the density of kinetic energy exceeds the density of modern explosives.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 18 March 2016 14: 40
                    +3
                    So yes ... The resistance to the projectile is primarily affected by the density of the medium (not for nothing that the Abrams has uranium inserts in the armor) and the velocity of the projectile (and SUDDENLY! Square of speed). The same, in turn, is characteristic of the material of the projectile. So in order to penetrate the ship through, the disc must be very dense, durable, refractory and not exceed a certain speed limit, which will lead to its mechanical destruction.

                    Roughly speaking: getting an ultra-high-speed bullet into concrete will lead not to a neat through hole, but to a rather wide (an order of magnitude larger caliber bullet), but relatively shallow channel with an extension at the inner end, where the bullet will evaporate and explode. For steel armor, the channel will be deeper, but less wide. In this case, the bullet will still explode, even if it manages to break through the armor. The heating of the upper layers to the state of the plasma will play its role.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 18 March 2016 10: 34
              +7
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              speed doesn't matter here. and even harms - a disc of 10 km / s will pierce the ship through,

              Not a fact.

              The "crowbar" fragmented after breaking through the armor already exists.

              Nothing prevents the penetrator from collapsing in the near-arm space. And it will turn out not breaking through, but a sheaf of high-speed fragments with all the consequences. Fragments that can penetrate ship bulkheads due to their high energy
              1. Santa Fe
                18 March 2016 10: 40
                -9
                Quote: Spade
                The "crowbar" fragmented after breaking through the armor already exists.

                Crowbar
                against 15 000 ton ship?)))))
                Quote: Spade
                And it will turn out not breaking through, but a sheaf of high-speed fragments with all the consequences.

                scared a hedgehog bare ass

                so much work and effort, and as a result, a sheaf of fragments))
                explosives are needed there. tens of kg of explosives, to cause some serious damage to a large ship

                this one, for example, is the height of an 10-story house
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 18 March 2016 10: 58
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Crowbar
                  against 15 000 ton ship?)))))

                  If we could calculate a "crowbar" for a 35-mm armor-piercing projectile, then it will be much easier to carry out a similar work for much larger penetrators of "railguns".
          2. PSih2097
            PSih2097 18 March 2016 09: 51
            +3
            Quote: Riv
            True, a shell weighs a couple of grams and can fly in the atmosphere no more than three meters (it is heated by friction against the air and evaporates). But dashing trouble began ...

            oh well, there is a blank disc of a couple kg, though it is chatting mercilessly in flight (you can see it for 24 seconds) ...

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            a disc of 10 km / s will pierce the ship through,

            not a fact, it can cause deformation of the body ...
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 18 March 2016 09: 58
              0
              She talks because the form is so special for testing so that the shells do not fly far away. Actually a square on the nose. Combat naturally will have normal aerodynamics
            2. Riv
              Riv 18 March 2016 17: 43
              +3
              The disc there obviously does not fly at a speed of 10 km / s. It is unlikely that there is even 500 meters per second, judging by the expansion of the fragments of the target and the penetration itself. In general, the video looks like a production one. Puffs of smoke, for example - they exist outside, but for some reason they cannot be seen inside the hole when shot, although at the exit from the barrel the plasma should spread uniformly in all directions. The principle of operation of the railgun determines the appearance of the shot, as the brightest flash on the cut of the barrel (plasma piston), which instantly goes out. About how to look at electric welding, only the flash itself is larger. And then, like a normal shot, dust takes off from the ground. It can be assumed that the disc accelerates with some kind of conductive lubricant, it burns. By the way: not the fact that the disc is metal ...

              Interesting trouble with the stabilization of the projectile. The crossbow bolt has the same problem: starting from a certain distance, it begins to chat in flight if the crossbow is too strong and the bolt is light. As a result, accuracy and breakdown power drop sharply. At one time, this was precisely one of the reasons for the proliferation of firearms - the bullet has no such problem, but the energy is higher.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 18 March 2016 20: 48
                0
                She talks because the form is so special for testing so that the shells do not fly far away. Actually a square on the nose. Combat naturally will have normal aerodynamics

                This is a different kind of test.
                Look at the old test of 2008, on the weaker railgun.
        2. kitamo
          kitamo 18 March 2016 08: 41
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Come on. What did they come up with from the time of a large-caliber armor-piercing projectile?


          oh well ... but a long loaf is vigorous if that shell will be more powerful?

          I rather agree with

          Quote: ruslan
          big countries are afraid to fight each other, baboons pose a minimal threat


          because, as in a war between * large countries * armor-piercing shells, the matter will not be limited, and no armor will help there, but to drive the barmalei, or to display a flag - and so it will do ...
        3. Thronekeeper
          Thronekeeper 18 March 2016 16: 47
          +4
          Well yes. Considering that the ships have lost their armor, a 2-2,5M anti-ship missile (now also on M6 :) gets into the board - this is equal to the initial speed of the artillery shell, and from 5-12 miles, and in ballistics - only hope on the deck - 400- 450m / s. "Onyx" weighs out without fuel, like a projectile "Yamato", only sticks under 0-10grd, a hole in the boat is 5-7m in diameter, the explosion takes out everything inside and + volumetric detonation of sprayed residues of kerosene. And one more thing - a projectile needs to hit (2-3%) to shoot down one of their flocks of Onyxes - 6 from Backfire or 20 from Severodvinsk, the probability is 20% if it turns off the engine and the radar and finds the target by OpticoIKGSN (ground-based with an accuracy of half a meter), "sees" attacking missiles, and he himself has 0,001mkV EPR :) It is especially good against the background of AUG. And it is not enough to knock him down (not to mention the "Granite") - the warhead cannot be involved in detonation, well, and 5-7 km is "running along the waves" with an additional (although the EM will not go anywhere) inertial fuse. And if you are a warhead of "Granite" - it (and the light "Zircon" (because of the speed) on Ek can be compared with the "Dora" projectile with an eight-ton one. The Kh-15S and especially the P are detected even worse and from a maximum height of 10-13 km and M2,3 Tupolev fly 300 and over 300 km. They fly up to the ship over M5 (5,5 at maximum range and drop height) at 1850 m / s, an inconspicuous target flies at you, moreover, half a kilogram of 70-75 is almost vertical, here to pray in time ... They don't have the same ec, of course. But they will pull at 354mm, and P - so over the Idzhis to jerk about 500-700 meters in height with a directed charge and your cleavage - and you don't need to hit ...
        4. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 March 2016 17: 23
          +1
          They came up with this: a rocket that makes high
          hill above the ship (several kilometers),
          180 degree swivel
          and attacking vertically down with the accelerator.
          Now come up with protection from her ...
      3. Mihaylo Tishayshiy
        Mihaylo Tishayshiy 20 March 2016 18: 36
        0
        Quote: aba
        Rather, the point is that by and large it is impossible to increase armor indefinitely - the means of destruction go one step ahead. So it seems more likely that the struggle is on the path to preventing the very fact of hit by the means of destruction at the target.

        It’s interesting, when creating new tanks, they create more and more types of armor. They would have hung around with active and passive dynamic protection, would have installed some kind of electronic warfare system, etc., etc., and would have put together a case from plywood, well, in extreme cases, would have blinded bulletproof (what a saving in weight) and would not fool your head! However, they fool you! What for?
      4. Aqela
        Aqela 21 March 2016 22: 02
        0
        yeah, and "yadren-loaf" will nullify any armor anyway ... belay No.
    2. Thronekeeper
      Thronekeeper 18 March 2016 16: 26
      +1
      "Eilat" in 1970 and a couple of EMs in 73m, though nothing would have saved a ton of warheads with UYa P-15. Sheffield, and then an American frigate, in which one of two Iraqi Mirage-F1 missiles exploded. Yes, the "Standard" and "Vulcan" also did not save the ONR, they saved that they did not get into the Mk-41 with the "Standards" and "Harpoons" - they saved the dead calm in the Persian Gulf and the glitchy "Exocets" that exploded on holidays. By the way, I had to write it off. How many on ONR died from a bursting one instantly, and how many more from a burning TTRD unexploded, plastics, internal detonations, etc. - burned alive - I don't remember. The Israeli under-EMURO in Lebanon-2006 was rescued by the RCS of the helicopter, into which the anti-ship missile system entered and through the duralumin, caused a fire. Nothing saved the 5 Saudi artillery patrols.

      In general - the author could write about the peters of the Air Force and the BTT coalition - I can find them in official sources in a minute ...
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 March 2016 19: 41
      +1
      Quote: ruslan
      as they are correctly noted, they are aimed at profit and cost reduction, but not at all on war

      Sorry, but in this case you became the victim of another profanity from Oleg Kaptsov.
      Firstly, the refusal to book a ship does not increase the profit of the shipbuilder, and secondly, anyone who knows at least a little the history of the design of British battlecruisers is aware that there were no considerations of economy there at all. Oleg, by the way, also knows this.
  3. qwert
    qwert 18 March 2016 06: 57
    +25
    Well, about the armor. Worn in the armor or not returned to Russia without a difference. Previously, a radical change in naval military systems made it possible to "overtake without catching up". Those. the dreadnoughts devalued the battleships and all the powers suddenly found themselves in an equal position with the outdated fleet and without new ships. And in such a situation, someone could catch up with Britain and become the second naval power, if he could build quickly and enough new ships. Now, if the United States and Britain start building armored cruisers, Russia will still remain in the same place as it is. We cannot build quickly and many ships of the first rank. First of all, there are no factories in the same condition as they were under the USSR. Secondly there is not that budget. And thirdly. In the first place we have yachts of oligarchs, football and hockey clubs, real estate in Nice, etc. And what fleet? Here it comes out. You can break spears about ship armor, but for our country this is not relevant
    1. AK64
      AK64 18 March 2016 20: 16
      +1
      Now, start the US and Britain to build armored cruisers, Russia will still remain in the same place as it is. We cannot build many ships of the first rank quickly and quickly.


      Quite the opposite: start Russia to build armored ships - and the US and NATO fleets will instantly become obsolete. And you have to write off

      This is how the first armadillos immediately made obsolete all armored ships obsolete.

      so direct economic meaning to do disgusting
  4. Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 March 2016 07: 16
    +6
    Cole, Cole, Cole ... at least write something new. Ten times the same thing.

    Cole is a brick falling on his head. It can happen to anyone. Let's all in helmets will walk down the street, in case the brick falls.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 07: 34
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      It can happen to anyone.

      No not with any

      read about the attack of the British "York" in Souda Bay, what means the pasta had to use. sinking mines - apparently, they knew that a surface explosion of the TKR would not take

      New Orleans and Minneanapolis had a half-body torn off (long-lance + detonation of BC nose bows), but they returned on their own, and not on the platform, like Cole
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 March 2016 10: 16
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No not with any

        Of course not with anyone. With the fact that all the bricks can be knocked back on approach, this does not happen. For homosapiens, this is bad, but for modern ships it’s normal.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 March 2016 10: 32
          -3
          Quote: Alex_59
          With the one that can bring down all the bricks even on approach, this does not happen

          How it happens. Entrim, 1983
          nearly burned out from the wreckage of a downed target
          Quote: Alex_59
          modern ships are fine.

          Cole and Entrim disagree
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 18 March 2016 10: 44
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Entrim, 1983
            nearly burned out from the wreckage of a downed target
            It happens. Everything happens in war. And were there such cases, or is it the only one?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Cole and Entrim disagree

            I don’t know what is happening with Entrim, and poor Cole does not agree first of all with his commander, who, being in a foreign port, did not organize observations of the environment. Here the armor will not help.
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 March 2016 07: 18
    +17
    What only amateur enthusiasts, fueled by professionals, will not think of laughing :
    1. geek2101
      geek2101 18 March 2016 08: 01
      +13
      C'mon, it was done by professionals themselves, without enthusiasts. fellow
    2. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 18 March 2016 09: 55
      +1
      This is the BRAVO device
    3. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 18 March 2016 09: 55
      0
      This is the BRAVO device
  6. lotar
    lotar 18 March 2016 07: 26
    +2
    In my opinion, any project should be approached in a comprehensive manner and based on the tasks that this project will solve with an orientation to future conflicts, however much the ship is over-protected, there will always be means to destroy it, and much cheaper than the ships themselves. Modern designers have already come up with multi-layer armor, and dynamic protection, and active protection and a system of passive suppression of electronic systems of ammunition. And what systems will appear in the future, only God knows those people who are already hour drop forward for decades and centuries to come.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 08: 01
      0
      Quote: lotar
      No matter how the ship is over-protected, there will always be means to destroy it, and much cheaper ones,

      If alwaysSo you can give at least one example?
  7. Waltasar
    Waltasar 18 March 2016 07: 29
    +2
    Of all the examples, I consider only torpedoes without protection to be a real miscalculation. The rest, either a child of his time (cole), or a creative search for designers, couldn't they honestly be mistaken that speed is more important than armor?
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 07: 59
      -3
      Quote: Waltasar
      either a child of his time (cole),

      so this is degeneracy and absurdity

      super ship does not hold an explosion near the side, falls apart like a cardboard
      his ancestors would have twisted a finger at the temple
      Quote: Waltasar
      couldn’t they honestly be mistaken that speed is more important than armor?

      They stubbornly bent their line, not wanting to admit mistakes

      I have attached a picture of "Derflinger" next to it. Speed ​​is speed, but why save on the most important, on security ??! For some reason the Germans knew about this, the British were engaged in a "creative search"
  8. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 18 March 2016 07: 43
    +5
    Task! The target is the battleship Iowa. Means of destruction is the warhead of a rocket moving at a speed of 5 max and a weight of 1 ton. Hit the target - in the board above the waterline, in the middle of the hull, with detonation and explosion.
    The question is, can Iowa continue to carry out the combat mission?
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 08: 04
      .
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Means of destruction is the warhead of a rocket moving at a speed of 5 max and a weight of 1 ton.

      This is not here, this is in the computer games section
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 March 2016 10: 27
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is not here, this is in the computer games section


        I would not say that. Naval anti-aircraft missile and anti-aircraft artillery systems are constantly being improved.
        And hypersound, at least in the final section, is one of the most effective ways to overcome them and increase the likelihood of a ship being hit.

        But this is not only an argument in favor of abandoning the armor (it will still be pierced), but also an argument in its favor (hypersonic anti-ship missiles can still be fought, but there is a high probability of the ship being hit by parts of destroyed anti-ship missiles flying in hypersound.)
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 March 2016 13: 05
        0
        I’m afraid that it’s exactly here, because it’s a real threat to itself.
  9. Mik13
    Mik13 18 March 2016 07: 51
    +11
    I don’t like to write long comments ... But I like the topic, so, perhaps, I will compete with the Author ...

    OK: the main thing in evaluating a project is its effectiveness, and in military technology it is advisable to take into account not only your own costs of the project, but also the costs of the enemy in counteraction. It often happens that a superweapon is neutralized by the massive use of relatively inexpensive types of weapons, it happens, on the contrary, costs that are incomparable with the cost of a solution are needed to neutralize.

    But since the topic is eternal - in the sense of the battle of shell and armor - we’ll talk about .... tanks.
    In the interwar period, the vast majority of tanks had bulletproof armor. And this was enough for them, according to the generals.
    But at the same time, the same generals understood that they still had to fight with enemy tanks - and anti-tank artillery appeared. A typical anti-tank gun of the late 30's is something weighing up to a ton and the size of an LNG-9 caliber from 30 to 45 mm. At the same time, he did not have unmasking signs when firing (like rocket-propelled grenade launchers), and almost all tanks of that time were knocked out at a distance of 500 meters.

    The USSR Army met with the new PTA during the fighting on Khalkhin Gol. The results were delivered. Of the 133 tanks participating in the attack near Mount Bain-Tsagan, 77 vehicles were lost, of which 51 BT-5 and BT-7 irretrievably. From PTO fire - 75-80%. Shortly before this, Soviet tankers had already had experience with PTA in Spain, but not on such a scale.

    The reaction of Soviet generals and engineers was quite predictable - Soviet tanks "got fat", and now the Germans had to be surprised in 1941.
    It was not that the tanks became impenetrable. You can knock everything out.
    The fact is that the main anti-tank weapon Pak 35/36, upon meeting the T-34 (not to mention the KV), suddenly received the honorary title of "door knocker", and the famous 8,8 cm FlaK had to work with the anti-tank gun. Everything would be fine, but it weighed 10 times more (and in the stowed position - 16!) And it was just a little more. Which had a very dramatic effect on the organization of the German VET (and the ways to overcome it)

    The USSR experienced similar experiences when communicating with the Tiger. And he made similar conclusions.

    As for the reservation of ships ... again, it all comes down to efficiency. If the availability of armor will neutralize the threat of existing anti-ship missiles - why not. Construction technologies worked out a long time ago, in addition, armored ships have one interesting feature - they are not afraid of cumulative ammunition (unlike tanks). Accordingly, decisions to overcome the reservation can be very expensive.

    On the other hand, it is necessary to consider the pros and cons, relying primarily on the existing concepts of application.

    In any case, I would not reject the idea on the basis that "these are the same people"
    A substantive discussion is much more useful, if only for broadening one's horizons.
    1. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon 18 March 2016 12: 13
      +1
      The author on this site has been explained many times that while they build the beloved armored pit, arms manufacturers will create a more effective means of destruction! What is cheaper and faster to design and adopt: a battleship or a warhead! ??
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 18 March 2016 13: 57
        0
        Quote: Cro-Magnon
        while the beloved armored bucket will be built, arms manufacturers will create a more effective means of destruction! What is cheaper and faster to design and adopt: a battleship or a warhead! ??

        You know, "everything is not so simple" (c).
        As far as I understand, in the near future no scientific and technological breakthroughs are expected, such as the hyperboloid of engineer Garin or sublimated antimatter.

        Accordingly, the task of causing sufficient damage to the ship to incapacitate it will be determined by the task of overcoming the armor protection.
        And here for now, either quick scrap, or a cumulative charge, or a landmine on the armor.
        And after overcoming, you still need to make some efforts. It’s not enough to dig a hole in the armor - you need to bring something inside.

        Accordingly, RCCs that are capable of this should be fast, durable and heavy. Which imposes limiting conditions on the displacement of the carrier. And even a large carrier cannot have many missiles in a salvo. That is, the air defense will already work easier.

        No one says that an armored ship will be invulnerable - the question is how much will the solution cost, allowing it to cause educational impact. Roughly speaking, how much will have to increase the caliber of RCC and everything that follows.

        But (I repeat) - in any case, you need to dance from the concept of application. A warship is not a thing in itself, but a derivative of functional limitations.
        On the other hand, there is often a situation where a model of weapons is completely unable to fulfill its mission in practice. And some - on the contrary, become a product useful, sometimes not in its main purpose.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 March 2016 12: 34
      +3
      Quote: Mik13
      The USSR Army met with the new PTA during the fighting on Khalkhin Gol. The results were delivered. Of the 133 tanks participating in the attack near Mount Bain-Tsagan, 77 vehicles were lost, of which 51 BT-5 and BT-7 irretrievably. From PTO fire - 75-80%. Shortly before this, Soviet tankers had already had experience with PTA in Spain, but not on such a scale.

      Nevertheless, TK on the medium anti-ballistic reservation tank with a divisional gun was formulated by Pavlov precisely after Spain, back in 1937. During the time of Khalkhin Gol, the A-32 was already ready and tested.
      Quote: Mik13
      The fact is that the main anti-tank weapon Pak 35/36, upon meeting the T-34 (not to mention the KV), suddenly received the honorary title of "door knocker", and the famous 8,8 cm FlaK had to work with the anti-tank gun. Everything would be fine, but it weighed 10 times more (and in the stowed position - 16!) And it was just a little more. Which had a very dramatic effect on the organization of the German VET (and the ways to overcome it)

      Ahem ... actually, besides these extremes, the Germans on June 22.06 already had 1200 normal Pak-38 anti-tank missiles, which even BB penetrated with ordinary BBs:
      Test result:
      50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
      The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
      That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

      Moreover, the development of this gun began not only before the start of the Second World War, but even before WWII - against the thick-armored French. And according to the results of the French campaign, the Germans began to make another 7,5 cm Pak-40.
      It's just that the new German anti-tank vehicles were regularly late for the outbreak of war. smile
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 18 March 2016 13: 24
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Ahem ... actually, besides these extremes, the Germans on 22.06 already had 1200 normal Pak-38 anti-tank missiles, which even BBs penetrated with ordinary BBs

        Of course. But in order to organize an effective anti-tank system, infantry units must be saturated with anti-tank weapons.

        1200 guns are few.

        In general, the sudden start of the German war helped a lot. If the USSR had in the western districts concentration of troops, allowing full-fledged offensive operations ...
        KMK, Germany could not defend itself with such a VET. But alas ...
  10. guzik007
    guzik007 18 March 2016 07: 58
    +4
    Kaptsov was a stubborn little ...
  11. qwert
    qwert 18 March 2016 08: 15
    +5
    Quote: AlNikolaich
    Task! The target is the battleship Iowa. Means of destruction is the warhead of a rocket moving at a speed of 5 max and a weight of 1 ton. Hit the target - in the board above the waterline, in the middle of the hull, with detonation and explosion.
    The question is, can Iowa continue to carry out the combat mission?

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    This is not here, this is in the computer games section

    Well, why in the section of computer games?
    It was in vain that the nga of the Soviet SCRC set up a high-explosive cumulative warhead. Obviously for armored ships. Since we knew that in the USA there are battleships that are periodically being re-mothballed and modernized, then it will be necessary to heat them too.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 08: 28
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      It was in vain that the nga of the Soviet SCRC set up a high-explosive cumulative warhead. Obviously for armored ships.

      No.
      The wide-focus cumulative warhead was used to roughly focus the blast wave on the attacked object.

      Used in the X-22Н rocket: lightened to 630 kg warhead with a high-explosive-cumulative charge, which triggered a destruction zone on board the ship 22 m² and depth up to 12 m

      When meeting with armor, it is useless
      1. Waltasar
        Waltasar 18 March 2016 08: 40
        +3
        Sorry, but where does this information come from and for what reservation is this fair?
        Yes, and who prevents to finalize the warhead for a more focused strike. Refining weapons may be cheaper than creating a steel monster.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 March 2016 10: 14
          -1
          Quote: Waltasar
          Yes, and who prevents to refine the warhead for a more focused strike

          And what will it give

          a hole in the armor? in the hope that it will rain, water will flow into the hole and the ship will sink
      2. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 18 March 2016 12: 16
        +1
        How long will it take to put special ammunition on the RCC !? Or do you think someone will abide by the conventions after the start of the superpower war! ??
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 18 March 2016 17: 54
        0
        All these missiles: X 22, P 700, P 1000, P 15 will soon be withdrawn from service.
  12. uskrabut
    uskrabut 18 March 2016 08: 47
    0
    So what? The person wrote correctly. You need to learn from the mistakes of others. And then the mistakes are listed and the consequences. And to put armor on ships or not to put is another question. If the ship has a sufficiently large displacement, then you can spend money on booking. And if there’s a trifle, then it makes no sense to put armor.
  13. Forest
    Forest 18 March 2016 09: 47
    +1
    As an engineer, I’m interested to see how an amateur can create something out of modern weapons.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2016 10: 13
      -1
      Quote: Forest
      as an amateur, he can create something out of modern weapons.

      Yes, literally everything. At the heart of any idea is a specific person
      1. Forest
        Forest 18 March 2016 12: 02
        +1
        So try it. Even for the normal calculation of an ordinary civil building, several programs, a powerful computer, and great knowledge of the structures are needed. And for military equipment, hundreds of other factors, tasks, etc. are superimposed. an amateur may come up with something beautiful, but it won’t work.
  14. Max repp
    Max repp 18 March 2016 10: 01
    +2
    I was very keen on the history of the RPE and I was struck by the very small losses of personnel on the EDB and DBK from artillery fire in hours of artillery battles, and on the BOD, the same Varyag.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 March 2016 12: 38
      +1
      Quote: Maks Repp
      I was very keen on the history of the RPE and I was struck by the very small losses of personnel on the EDB and DBK from artillery fire in hours of artillery battles, and on the BOD, the same Varyag.

      But what about the Vladivostok detachment and the battle in the Korea Strait?
  15. sevtrash
    sevtrash 18 March 2016 10: 20
    +1
    The one who does nothing is not mistaken. But for the Spee squadron, Invincible was hardly an unsuccessful ship. Ships make for certain tasks, for some it turns out better for some, for someone worse for something, and better or worse it depends on the conditions of military activity.
    Maybe someday, the armor will be back. When there is a real need for it.
  16. unknown
    unknown 18 March 2016 10: 20
    +5
    The tragedy of the English battlecruisers in the battle of Jutland in the wrong tactical application. And when the Falklands were used correctly.
    The main disadvantage of British cruisers and battleships is the way of storing powder charges. The Germans also had problems at first, but after the Dogger Bank they solved them. The returned Seydlitz is not only a more thought-out concept of the ship, but also a heroic struggle of the crew for its survivability.

    The Japanese fleet in the interwar period was preparing for a general night battle. NIGHT. With the first strike. There were not enough carriers. Therefore, torpedo tubes on cruisers. Which, by the way, were actively used. And effectively. The British cruisers also had torpedo tubes. Both in German and in Soviet.
  17. Denimax
    Denimax 18 March 2016 10: 29
    0
    In the age of the Internet, dreaming about past battles is somehow out of place.)
    Well, if this is a hobby, then of course you can dream at your leisure. By the way, they rebuilt the art. ships to aircraft carriers. Conversely, an aircraft carrier in a battleship? Put on the deck of the tower and leave the side superstructure.)
  18. mpzss
    mpzss 18 March 2016 10: 43
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: qwert
    It was in vain that the nga of the Soviet SCRC set up a high-explosive cumulative warhead. Obviously for armored ships.

    No.
    The wide-focus cumulative warhead was used to roughly focus the blast wave on the attacked object.

    Used in the X-22Н rocket: lightened to 630 kg warhead with a high-explosive-cumulative charge, which triggered a destruction zone on board the ship 22 m² and depth up to 12 m

    When meeting with armor, it is useless

    Question: You want to say that 630 kg cumulative explosive charge will not be able to penetrate armor? This is how thick the armor should be !? Or I'm wrong! kinetic energy has not been canceled!
    on armadillos, the thickness of the armor was 180 cm below the waterline, 120 mm above the waterline, well, even if they now make 150 cm above the waterline, I don’t think that this will be a significant obstacle to the rocket, maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, increasing the thickness of the sides of the ship by weighting will lead to greater draft, a decrease in speed and a decrease in payload with the same tonnage! I wrote above, and I agree with this that we should not increase the thickness of the armor, but reduce the chance of getting ammunition in your ship! And about the fact that a homemade bomb was attached to the ship’s hull, well, I must say thanks to the shift that was on the ship - I LOST! And in this case, NO armor will save!
  19. metallic
    metallic 18 March 2016 11: 34
    +4
    Remember that the ark was built by an amateur. Professionals built the Titanic

    The question of the reliability of the ark remains open.
    And about the Titanic - name a modern ship that can withstand the flooding of five compartments from the tip.

    And in general - what is the article about? Is it time to build battleships?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 March 2016 11: 43
      +1
      Quote: metallic
      The question of the reliability of the ark remains open.
      And about the Titanic - name a modern ship that can withstand the flooding of five compartments from the tip.

      This is actually a rather old proverb.

      You will not seriously discuss the fundamental impossibility of milking chickens?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 March 2016 12: 39
        +5
        Quote: Spade

        You will not seriously discuss the fundamental impossibility of milking chickens?

        ... especially when opponents have a concrete argument in the form of "Bird's milk" candies. laughing
  20. brn521
    brn521 18 March 2016 11: 49
    +2
    200 kilos of ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder were mixed (far from the most effective explosive, with a detonation speed of about 4 km / s).

    They needed a volumetric explosion, which, with a limited charge size, would produce maximum work. According to the textbooks, in brisance the aforementioned mixture is comparable to trotyl, and in terms of high explosiveness it exceeds one and a half times. The main problem is that the mixture is poorly stored.
    1. brn521
      brn521 18 March 2016 12: 07
      0
      Contextual advertising on the site, Christmas trees. It immediately appeared right at the end of the list of comments: "Attention! Saltpeter is expensive! Use some kind of carbamide."
    2. AK64
      AK64 18 March 2016 20: 43
      +2
      According to the textbooks, in brisance the aforementioned mixture is comparable to trotyl, and in terms of high explosiveness it exceeds one and a half times.


      You are wrong. Firstly, TNT is just one and a half times superior, and secondly, for a good explosion, ammonal should be strongly pressed. And with these he was only a little rammed. That is, in reality, the TNT equivalent was even lower
      1. brn521
        brn521 21 March 2016 11: 10
        0
        Quote: AK64
        Firstly, TNT is "one and a half times"

        Quote: AK64
        really TNT equivalent was even lower

        According to all available tables, the ammonals are comparable with trotyl in brisance and surpass it in explosiveness by at least 30%. In military affairs, they were used to equip high-explosive bombs by the same Germans at the beginning of the Second World War. The bomb, stuffed with ammonal, will cause more serious damage to buildings over a larger area. It’s just that this filling is poorly stored and can eventually detonate badly or not at all.
        I do not argue for artisanal ammonal, you can figure it out who, what, and how interfered. Information on the characteristics of artisanal ammonal (nitrate + aluminum powder without troubles) is on Wikipedia. High explosiveness - 450 ml, brisance - 14 mm. TNT has 16 mm and 285 ml. Energy is small, 0,7-0,8 in TNT equivalent, but the large volume of gas generated contributes well to the transfer of this energy over a large radius.
        Quote: AK64
        for a good explosion, the ammonal should be strongly pressed

        This rocky ammonal needs to be pressed, because it requires increased brisance. And in the case of the ship, brisance is useless to us, we do not pierce metal, we break it.
        For artisanal ammonal, a slight prepress is required up to a density of 1.0-1.05g / cm3 to achieve optimal characteristics.
  21. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 18 March 2016 11: 53
    -4
    Oleg Kaptsov, in my opinion, is one of the three most interesting authors of VO.
    Respect.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 18 March 2016 13: 20
      +4
      The most scandalous is not the most interesting ...
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 18 March 2016 15: 08
        +2
        What does scandal have to do with it, and where did it suddenly come from? Correctly he writes or not this is such a thing, everyone can have their own opinion on the issue. More importantly, he does not suffer from primitive copy-paste with bmpd or from warfiles and other things, but writes original copyright materials, about something really unusual. At present, in VO is a rarity. Even if he writes absolute nonsense about some kind of star track, I'm sure it will be - original nonsense, which can be interesting to argue about.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 18 March 2016 16: 26
          +2
          Here is the "dog and rummaged" ... Yes, not copy-paste - or rather, copy-paste but ennobled by the literary word.
          And the real articles, which are "on business" for some reason, they do not cause such a stir. Which is also understandable - if you start to understand it seriously, it will be boring textbooks on strength of materials, gas dynamics, ballistics and much more ... Whoever reads this will be. That is why much more meaningful articles of the same "engineer - techie" will, at best, cause a dozen comments ... And "fabrications" a la Kaptsov a lot of shit and the growth of "karma".
          This is all understandable, but sad. For we already have a country of "militant dilettantes".
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 18 March 2016 18: 01
            0
            I personally read "real articles" in completely different places. "Agiotations" arise because it is interesting.
            If you re-read my first comment, you will notice
            Oleg Kaptsov In my opinion one of the three most interesting authors in
            .
            Just in case, I will emphasize "in my opinion." I don't impose my opinion on anyone, it's not interesting to me. I hope you don't impose your opinion on me either.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 18 March 2016 20: 58
              +1
              Yes, my God ... If you pay attention, in my posts I usually add IMHO ...
              It's just that there is knowledge, but there is the aplomb of a dilettante picked up from "Wikipedia" ... So I would like not to mix one with the other.
  22. Recoil
    Recoil 18 March 2016 12: 03
    +1
    A qualitative leap in armament occurs when there is a clear imbalance between the means of defense and the means of attack. In order for the protection to change qualitatively, a qualitative change in the means of destruction is necessary.
    I am a tanker. I understand the situation in shipbuilding as follows: armor on ships will appear when electromagnetic guns and lasers become massive in the fleet. In a situation where the shield (electronic warfare equipment) fully protects from the sword (RCC), this is not very long to wait. Wangyu: the era of new armadillos will come in 30 years.
    1. brn521
      brn521 18 March 2016 13: 47
      +5
      Quote: Rollback
      I am a tanker. I understand the situation in shipbuilding as follows: armor on ships will appear when electromagnetic guns and lasers become massive in the fleet.

      If from this point of view, then probably should be formulated as follows. Armored ships will appear when there is a need for tank ships, the task of which is to keep the strike. The battleship was just such a tank. Photos of battleships gouged into the trash, but remained afloat, are not something special. However, who will use the tank to solve problems that are usually characteristic of artillery and aviation? Separation of functions is often more beneficial than trying to create something universal. And in the case of ships, this problem is especially pronounced. A ship is a piece of goods, is expensive and takes a long time to build. It's hard to experiment here. Especially with armor, which is part of the hull. And even if they begin to build battleships, there will still be many ships left without full armor. And a fan of the ship's theme is found, who will begin to whine and lament about the poor destroyers. The fact that the armor is cheap, and the equipment of destroyers is expensive, let's make them battleships. He will give examples of destroyers that drowned, grabbing a couple of hits from the battleships, or did not survive the terrorist attack on board with 200 kg of explosives. And then it comes to patrol boats. And it will be right. A guard boat in the battleship format is very effective in naval combat :).
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 March 2016 19: 16
      0
      "armor on ships will appear when electromagnetic guns and lasers become massive in the fleet" ////

      But it's easier and cheaper to dive. A layer of water in a couple of hundred meters will protect better than armor.
      The ships of the future are rather universal submarines, capable of conducting surface combat from guns and missile launchers, launching UAVs and mini submarines. And when it "smells fried" - in depth.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 20 March 2016 19: 21
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And when it "smells fried" - in depth

        And here it was her some kind of diving missile torpedo and ... that ...

        After all, you don’t really think about "actively" underwater, all sorts of anti-missile artillery systems are useless ..

        IMHO recipe .. not universal, let's say yes
  23. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 March 2016 12: 04
    +6
    Only true professionals could think of the concept of the British battlecruiser. Virtually nothing is unprotected "bucket", which had to go chest on a machine gun to fight on equal terms with the dreadnoughts. As compensation, active protection measures were proposed, in the form of an increased speed (by 5 knots compared to a conventional LC).

    Initial tasks of battlecruisers:
    1. Conducting reconnaissance in battle.
    2. Support for small cruisers.
    3. Independent actions to protect merchant shipping and the destruction of enemy raiders.
    4. Cover for the deployment of the main forces of the fleet.
    5. The pursuit of a defeated enemy, the destruction of damaged ships.

    And where is the "battle on equal terms with the dreadnoughts"?
    In a big battle, battle cruisers had to maintain their reconnaissance forces and destroy enemy reconnaissance. This is only later, when the LCR were already built, they began to set tasks that were not initially prescribed for them at all.

    That way you can run into the T-34 - they say, an unprotected tub, which had to fight on equal terms with the "tigers". smile
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 18 March 2016 13: 19
      +6
      "The pony runs in a circle and counts circles in his mind" (c) - are you tired of fighting with Kaptsov's windmills? Well, the guy created for himself a "consistent picture of the world" - everything that does not fit into it is cut off in principle. The main thing for the people is not to understand the essence, but to "take a shit from the heart" - and here Kaptsov's "opuses on a given topic are the very thing ...
      It’s time to start ignoring it, especially since the arguments and examples are so monotonous and wander from "note to note", even the "ease of the pen" does not help. Personally, I'm already very bored.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 March 2016 14: 00
        +4
        Quote: Taoist
        everything that does not fit into it is cut off in principle

        And most importantly - there is nothing to argue. You say to a person - go learn the combat manual and find out how tactics differ from operational art. And he says that your charter is junk. How can one challenge such a position? No way ...
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 18 March 2016 14: 21
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          How can one challenge such a position? No way ...

          can! send for a year to serve. where-thread for the Arctic Circle.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 March 2016 16: 13
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          And most importantly - there is nothing to argue. You say to a person - go learn the combat manual and find out how tactics differ from operational art. And he says that your charter is junk

          Forum disputes ... forum disputes never change.
          Sir Zampotech appears on the northern edge of the Racetrack, wearing armor in the form of a T-72, on a shield: a tarpaulin boot trampling on a disgusting bald creature in the form of an icebreaker. Behind him the squire Designer carries a banner with the motto: "Sir Znayka, Sir Engineer and Sir Fo-Fan, you are goats!" The destroyer demands to remove the banner, as an insult to the worthy knights of the Forum. Sir Zampotech agrees to remove Sir Fo-Fan and Sir Engineer as he is reconciled with them, but refuses to remove Sir Knowca. The magistrate, who touched the podium with the stem, goes berserk and threatens Zampotech with exile. Sir Zampotech agrees to change the slogan. The designer splashes apple juice on the banner, and the motto changes: "Sir Znayka, you are memeting!"
          Sir Znayka appears at the opposite end of the Raceway, wearing double crimson armor and a shield with the motto: "Sir Zampotech, textbooks are shit!"
          Sir Zampotech yells to Sir Znayka to prepare his own shit. Sir Znayka replies that he never used this foul-smelling device, his weapon will be his intellect. Sir Zampotech shouts that in this case he refuses to fight, because he didn’t fight unarmed for some time. By decision of the Magistrate, both noble knights were ordered to use factually tested weapons. Zampotech makes several trial attacks, presenting them as an article. Sir Znayka reflects them and, in turn, snatches out his article. Sir Zampotech satanically laughs and promises to dismantle Sir Znayka and his article for a gimbal and turret box. With these curses, the sky is covered with clouds, and the audience is hiding under the benches. Sir Zampotech attacks the article of Sir Znayka three times, but it magically replaces it every time. Finally, Sir Zampotech presses Sir Znayka to the fence, demanding an answer to the question of what shape the wheel is. Sir Znayka answers that it depends on the type of ammunition, but Sir Zampotech does not back down, and finally, Sir Znayka is forced to admit that, other things being equal, the wheel has the shape of a circle. Sir Zampotech declares that his victory is unconditional and, without paying attention to the protesting screams of Sir Znayka, leaves the Shroud.
          Spectators, somewhat puzzled, are trying to remember what caused the fight.
          (c) Koshkin

          ICH, it was written more than 10 years ago. But when Sir Zampotech a couple of years ago no longer clashed with Isaev, but with Pasholok, the picture was the same. smile
    2. AK64
      AK64 18 March 2016 20: 50
      0
      However, Beatty’s squad wasn’t at all damn the LC - they fought with the same battlecruisers
  24. brn521
    brn521 18 March 2016 12: 23
    +4
    By the way, the author in articles and comments extols the barrel artillery. As far as I remember, one of the serious problems was the ambiguity of the goal. Armor-piercing projectile works inefficiently when meeting with an unarmored part of the ship. Explodes, flying right through and moving away from the target. Because of this, armor was not placed everywhere and not always, and it happened that they removed during the modernization process even from liquors in certain areas. Therefore, IMHO the author in vain appeals to armor-piercing shells. This is a relic of the past when the fleets had nothing more to oppose each other.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 March 2016 12: 45
      +4
      Quote: brn521
      Therefore, IMHO the author in vain appeals to armor-piercing shells. This is a relic of the past when the fleets had nothing more to oppose each other.

      In fact, we are seeing a renaissance of naval artillery.
      Sorry, with the current range of 100-120 km, the highest probability of overcoming the "near" air defense of the ship by the covering group, the development of computer technology, it is too early to write off naval artillery.
      1. brn521
        brn521 18 March 2016 13: 04
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Sorry, with the current range of 100-120 km, the highest probability of overcoming the "near" air defense of the ship by the covering group, the development of computer technology, it is too early to write off naval artillery.

        But why armor-piercing at such a distance? They either will not pierce anything, or vice versa, they will sew through right through without any sense. By the way, the delay on high-explosive ordnance by what principle will we set?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 18 March 2016 13: 43
          +2
          Quote: brn521
          But why armor-piercing at such a distance? They either will not pierce anything, or vice versa, they will sew through right through without any sense. By the way, the delay on high-explosive ordnance by what principle will we set?

          With modern electronic fuses, this problem basically does not exist.
          1. brn521
            brn521 18 March 2016 14: 07
            0
            Quote: Spade
            With modern electronic fuses, this problem basically does not exist.

            Is the electronic fuse able to "feel" the need to fire? For example, I hit the dreadnought - oh, this is the stern, the upper part, jerk right away to spoil the steering gear. Or, after hitting below the waterline under the armor belt, wait until the projectile overcomes the loose passive anti-tank device in order to jerk closer to the vehicles or ammunition. If you hit the pipe, you must again jerk immediately to reduce the power of the power plant. In my opinion, these are rather difficult tasks, available only for expensive and fragile filling installed in rockets. And normally, only torpedoes bypassed such a problem, which from whatever side of the ship they explode, a good result is obtained. The principle of torpedoes is relatively simple - the maximum possible charge, exploding in the water at a certain distance from the side. The rest of the work will be done by the blast wave propagating in the water, which does not so much pierce as it bends and tears the armor and the kit, demolishes the bulkheads.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 18 March 2016 15: 12
              +2
              Quote: brn521
              Is the electronic fuse able to "feel" the need to fire?

              Why not? A simple accelerometer that measures negative acceleration. When piercing armor, it is more, when piercing an ordinary regret, less

              But it can be even simpler: electronics allows you to make less delay time. Compared to powder retarder or mechanics.
              If earlier a shell, breaking through armor, for example, exploded in a meter, and breaking through a non-armored barrier, in three, now it is possible to detonate immediately after armor or two meters behind a non-armored barrier.
              1. brn521
                brn521 18 March 2016 16: 13
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Why not? A simple accelerometer that measures negative acceleration. When piercing armor, it is more, when piercing an ordinary regret, less

                I specifically described two options, when both "iron" breaks through, and not the main armor. But in one case, it is necessary to jerk immediately (feed, steering), in the other - as late as possible (the side under the armor belt, where the anti-tank defense begins).
                Quote: Spade
                If before a shell, breaking through armor, for example, exploded in a meter, and breaking through a non-armored obstacle, in three

                Once upon a time I came across a description of one incident. The Germans in the Second World War for a long time could not defeat a wooden ship with naval artillery. The fuses on the shells did not work at all, an unstable obstacle.
                Quote: Spade
                now it’s possible to detonate immediately after the armor or two meters behind the non-armored barrier

                The problem is that we do not have a tank, but something much larger. A ship may have several of these obstacles, or it may not be at all. And how can it really be found out only by espionage. By the way, there were precedents when officially published data on ships turned out to be misinformation. Those. even a very smart fuse will not always be able to determine the optimal time for detonation.
                By the way, I recall that on the ships they put spaced armor (they say so, for example, a 70 + 50mm deck). Is it not for this purpose, to deceive a shell so that the same armor-piercing shell explodes ahead of time?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 18 March 2016 16: 30
                  0
                  Quote: brn521
                  The problem is that we do not have a tank, but something much larger.

                  This is just not a problem at all. Scale, on the contrary, makes work easier.
  25. Leeder
    Leeder 18 March 2016 12: 40
    +1
    Perhaps the most striking example of HMS Captain (1869)

    HMS Captain (1869) (Captain, English HMS Captain) - an armadillo of the British Navy. At the time of commissioning in 1870 was one of the most powerful ships of this class in the world (and possibly the most powerful) [1]. The ship was designed and built under the guidance of renowned shipbuilder Cooper Phips Colz, largely influenced by the views of the British public on the development of the naval forces.

    Serious theoretical errors and design miscalculations made in the project led to a very significant overload of the ship and, as a consequence, poor stability. Due to overload, the battleship, having been in service for a little more than 4 months, turned over and sank in the Bay of Biscay on the night of September 6-7, 1870 with almost the entire crew, which became one of the largest disasters in the Royal Navy in peacetime. The death of "Captain" had an important impact on the further British and, as a whole, world military shipbuilding.
  26. Belousov
    Belousov 18 March 2016 13: 19
    +3
    Kaptsov in his repertoire: who does not use armor is an unwise person. And she doesn’t want to hear arguments. The British, Germans, Japanese, Italians, French and others are all stupid people. One Kaptsov well done.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 18 March 2016 14: 23
      +1
      Quote: Belousov
      The British, Germans, Japanese, Italians, French and others are all stupid people. One Kaptsov well done.

      Does Kaptsov use armor? on which ship? =)
  27. brn521
    brn521 18 March 2016 13: 23
    +1
    Quote: LeeDer
    Serious theoretical errors and design flaws made in the project led to a very significant overload of the ship

    Overload, problems with seaworthiness, difficulties with modernization are common problems for all battleships.
  28. Leeder
    Leeder 18 March 2016 14: 43
    0
    Quote: brn521

    Overload, problems with seaworthiness, difficulties with modernization are common problems for all battleships.

    I agree, but no one has ever ignored the tests of models and the opinions of other designers.
    Read the whole article https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_%281869%29
    1. brn521
      brn521 18 March 2016 16: 16
      0
      Quote: LeeDer
      I agree, but no one has ever ignored the tests of models and the opinions of other designers.

      So what time was it. Even much later there was a characteristic moment. Some aircraft enthusiasts initially stubbornly used a flat-profile propeller. Because They believed in the oar and the principle of its action, but they did not believe in aerodynamics and test models. And imagine if such a person breaks to the very top.
      1. Leeder
        Leeder 18 March 2016 17: 15
        0
        That's just the price of the error is high ... 506 lives and the ship itself ...
  29. tar9
    tar9 18 March 2016 14: 48
    0
    Wacky suggestion: attach EMP ammunition to a cruise missile. After hitting the ultramodern ship, it turns into a floating prisoner-of-war camp, since without electronics it can neither shoot nor purposefully sail. The presence or absence of armor does not matter.
  30. Old_Python
    Old_Python 18 March 2016 14: 51
    +3
    I bow to the author of the phrase "Remember that the ark was built by an amateur. Professionals built the Titanic."
    And I bow absolutely sincerely: this person (if he is alone) is a genius. The phrase is absolutely impeccable, it is completely impossible to resist it, because every word in it is true.
    And that’s all - the experts go through the forest, far and for a long time. And at the same time, technical universities, anyway, they will not teach anything good there.
    In general, the phrase worse than the atomic bomb will be ...
  31. Berber
    Berber 18 March 2016 14: 52
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: aba
    means of destruction go one step ahead

    One step ahead?

    Come on. What did they come up with from the time of a large-caliber armor-piercing projectile? with the same penetrating and destructive ability (mass of hundreds of kg, supersonic, 98% of mass - solid metal). Super-penetrator, capable of leading under a hole deep into the hull, passing through all the armor plates and bulkheads a couple of tens of kg of explosives
    + the formation after the explosion of such a shell of heavy multi-kilogram fragments, which also destroyed everything in its path, through mechanisms and bulkheads

    At the same time, even monster shells did not always cope. Seidlitz returned to base with 20 wounds + torpedo hit

    Man is not real
  32. gladcu2
    gladcu2 18 March 2016 15: 04
    +1
    Lord Kelvin is a British scientist ...

    This leads to strange thoughts ...
  33. serverny
    serverny 18 March 2016 15: 10
    +1
    Thanks to the careless storage, the “Long Lances” did more damage to the Imperial Navy cruisers than to their adversary.

    Extremely cheap and deceitful stuffing.
  34. brn521
    brn521 18 March 2016 16: 40
    +1
    Talk about "smart" warheads is suggestive. The smart warhead will dive, find the propellers and rudder, and cover them with a copper basin. But the smartest one will be the one that, instead of detonating, will chase the crew, capturing the ship as a result. This is also facilitated by the small number of modern crews and the weakness of their personal protective equipment. You just need to take more charges with you to open the hatches. However, I'm an amateur here. What are the capabilities and methods available to the crew to counter a group of saboteurs-invaders who have boarded? Of course, human saboteurs are weak and vulnerable. But you can make robots, for example. The same Zamwalt is so expensive that a variety of ways to neutralize it, including the most fantastic, can pay off. You can certainly come up with a similar crap, incapacitating tanks, spoiling their optics, communications and weapons. But tanks are relatively cheap and usually have good cover. Who will cover Zamvolt's crew?
  35. iouris
    iouris 18 March 2016 19: 00
    0
    History teaches us that it does not teach us anything. That is why continuity, preservation of the national engineering school is important in design. But, of course, we must not forget about the always inadequate funding, and now about the irresistible desire to increase the rate of return.
    I liked the presentation style. About serious nonsense with grave consequences after many years, and we must speak with irony.
  36. Tarikxnumx
    Tarikxnumx 18 March 2016 21: 38
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    No.
    The wide-focus cumulative warhead was used to roughly focus the blast wave on the attacked object.

    Used in the X-22Н rocket: lightened to 630 kg warhead with a high-explosive-cumulative charge, which triggered a destruction zone on board the ship 22 m² and depth up to 12 m

    When meeting with armor, it is useless

    And what prevents you from using a cumulative warhead based on the principle of an impact core to overcome your hypothetical armor? If a standard anti-aircraft anti-tank mine with a mine diameter of 180 mm, 6.5 kg of hexogen and a copper plate weighing 2 kg pierces up to 70 mm of homogeneous armor with an inlet diameter of about 100 mm, then what size will damage be with a warhead weighing 630 kg and a plate similar in size to it? And what kind of back-up action will the impact core have at this power? And finally, how thick should the armor be in order to guarantee that it will not penetrate? I don’t stutter about the mass ....
    1. Tarikxnumx
      Tarikxnumx 19 March 2016 02: 51
      +1
      I will answer myself ... wassat I climbed your internet and learned a lot. laughing
      If we take the nomenclature of all Soviet anti-ship missiles (and I think that the technique of the probable enemy develops in a similar way), it turns out one amusing little thing that Oleg unobtrusively omits when he advocates the return of armor to the ship. Namely - all missiles designed to destroy ships have either high explosive cumulative or penetrating Warhead or as this type is also called - semi-armor-piercing. At the same time, he writes that the cumulatively high explosive warhead works only for rough focusing of the blast wave, which is frankly not so. The trick is that this warhead consists in fact of two charges. The first charge with a cumulative jet burns a hole equal in size to a high explosive charge in the side of the ship, which is blown up after being buried inside the vessel, which causes terrible size damage. And in this case, the presence of armor just becomes dangerous, because if the high-explosive part is detonated, the wave will not be able to at least partially go outside and inflict great damage in the reserved space ...
      As for the penetrating warhead, then everything is fun. A living example of the anti-ship missile "Moskit" - Bch has a weight of 320kg. In this case, the weight of the explosive is only 150 kg. What is the 170kg difference? Is the detonator so heavy? What will be the kinetic energy of a purely warhead impact, even without taking into account the mass of the rest of the rocket, if it comes into the side at a speed of at least 200 m / s? How thick is the armor plate needed to ensure that the 320-kilogram blank does not penetrate (I repeat, the mass of the rocket is not taken into account) and even at a zero angle, which does not allow any possibility of ricochet.
      So it turns out that circular armor doesn’t increase the survivability of the ship, on the contrary, it will greatly worsen both seaworthiness and increase the negative consequences of getting into it. So the most rational and survivability-enhancing solution in modern conditions is the modern technology for building warships. Those. the maximum separation of combat units and transportation, figuratively speaking, of the maximum amount of air divided by a large number of bulkheads.
      1. Santa Fe
        19 March 2016 06: 23
        0
        Quote: TarIK2017
        At the same time, he writes that the cumulatively high explosive warhead works only for rough focusing of the blast wave, which is frankly not so. The trick is that this warhead consists in fact of two charges.

        Are you confused with the tandem penetrating warhead

        and the warhead X-22Н - to focus the explosion on the area 20 square. m
        Quote: TarIK2017
        since when a high-explosive part is detonated, the wave cannot at least partially go outside

        first start with armor at least 50 kg BB
        Quote: TarIK2017
        In this case, the weight of the explosive is only 150kg. What is the difference in 170kg? Is the detonator so heavy?

        Shards
        Quote: TarIK2017
        penetrating warhead or as this type is also called - semi-armor-piercing

        penetrating and semi-armor-piercing - different things

        penetrating - characterized by a slow fuse, just
        1. Tarikxnumx
          Tarikxnumx 19 March 2016 13: 46
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Are you confused with the tandem penetrating warhead

          and the warhead X-22Н - to focus the explosion on the area 20 square. m

          No, you are confusing a high-explosive guided warhead with a cumulatively high-explosive warhead. Trite, a cumulative explosion can not give a wide area damage. It is always a narrowly directed stream of either gases or metal cone lining. Penetrating warhead tandem can be of various types, including high-explosive cumulative.
          Example of CF warhead. Where 1 is the cumulative lining, 3,4 is the cumulative charge, 2 is the HE charge, 5 is the initiator. At the same time, explosives have different detonation speeds, which makes it possible to inflict maximum damage upon detonation.


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          first start with armor at least 50 kg of explosives

          answer above
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Shards

          Turn on the fool? Shards of what? 170 kilogram detonator? Weight warhead 320 kg, explosive mass 150kg. What is the mass difference? Is it not on the case of the warhead made of heat-strengthened steel of type S-45X? And tell me, what thickness should the armor plate have to prevent penetration?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          penetrating and semi-armor-piercing - different things

          penetrating - characterized by a slow fuse, just

          Are we playing with words and terms again? In order not to go into the jungle at all, let's take a quote from "Wiki"
          Penetrating warhead [edit | edit wiki text]
          Type of warheads that are designed to undermine targets protected by armor, concrete or a layer of soil. Structurally, they are a durable case, with a charge placed inside (high-explosive or high-explosive fragmentation). In the event of a collision with an obstacle, due to the robust housing, the charge breaks through the obstacle and explodes behind it. The main objectives are ships and in-depth bunkers and bomb shelters. Depending on the type of targets, the following types of warheads are distinguished:

          Half-armor-piercing warhead - Designed to destroy ships ...


          On my own, I will add that the structurally semi-armor-piercing warhead is the closest in design to a concrete-piercing projectile. The only difference is the ratio of warhead mass to explosive mass. At semi-armor-piercing it is higher, as it is unnecessary to break through 7m of concrete :)
          In high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation warheads, the mass ratio is usually in favor of explosives, and much more.
        2. Tarikxnumx
          Tarikxnumx 19 March 2016 13: 50
          +2
          Penetrating warhead anti-ship missile "Granit" (it is semi-armor-piercing) wink
  37. Operator
    Operator 18 March 2016 22: 53
    -1
    The pioneering anti-ship missile "Zircon" went to trial - the arctic fox stepped on the conservative armor laughing
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 March 2016 23: 59
      +1
      Or maybe the other way around?

      A hypersonic missile can be shot down. But at the same time a bunch of debris is formed, flying at a speed close to the speed of sub-caliber shells. And nothing can be protected from them.

      Except "conservative armor" 8)))
      1. Operator
        Operator 20 March 2016 17: 28
        -1
        Rear Admiral Viktor Bursuk announced yesterday the Russian Navy’s innovative plan to transfer from NK to anti-aircraft defense / missile defense systems, which are protected from anti-ship missiles and fragments of water column.

        Conservative armor - the passed stage.
  38. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 19 March 2016 00: 55
    0
    Kaptsov learned to write excellent articles from a literary point of view. I am not a writer, but it seems to me. Little essays. Exciting to read.
    But the content can be argued. What does the inventors have to do with it? When were armored ships built by inventors? They were built by shipyards, in which governments swelled all available free money, metal, and so on.
    I won’t argue about armor. In my opinion, the ship should be durable and invulnerable to small cannons, machine guns, pirate grenade launchers, aircraft guns, collisions with other small ships and small underwater objects, a muddy bottom, etc. This already implies thick steel sides, superstructures and bulkheads. But do not get too carried away, why - see the previous paragraph.
    I did not understand what kind of miracle is depicted in the first figure? Displacement is clearly not consistent with the volume. In addition, even this unidentified object will stay on the water, one good wave on the left along the course, and it will roll to the right.