Military Review

The majestic power of the ships

78


Seas and oceans cover seven-tenths of the Earth’s surface, but most people have never been able to see ocean sunsets or real ships in their lives. Living on the shore is difficult to imagine the true size of marine equipment. Without seeing the ships at close range, it is impossible to understand how enormous these machines are, and how they differ from everything that we used to meet on land.



Walking around the city and encountering a battleship on the street, you can get a shock for the rest of your life. A close acquaintance with such a colossus will quickly reduce the number of “sofa experts” who search for posts on the Internet: “One rocket - and a boules-boules”. Sitting on the couch often just do not understand what it is.

“Wisconsin” (tactical number BB-64) is so huge not because it is a battleship, but because all the ships are monstrous in comparison with man. Thousands of tons of metal structures whose total density is less than the density of water.



Everyone knows what a tanker looks like outside.

This is how it looks from the inside:



The majestic power of the ships




“Skyscraper” at the pier. But only an ordinary destroyer, one of the sixty built on the project “Burke”.


The anchor of the submarine pr. 941 “Shark”




People used to see the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great on TV screens. Like a paper boat, which let children. Distance hides true dimensions.


Machina near




Another unusual perspective on the Orlan under construction. This is just something.



Captain liner “Queen Mary 2” is posing against the background of his ship. “Black Queen” overshadows all





One of the four aircraft lifters aircraft carrier. With this size you can play football on it.




One of the yachts of the Russian businessman Andrei Melnichenko (Sailing Yacht “A”, launched in 2015). In size, it is much larger than the American destroyer. On such a scale, the figures of people on the deck become almost invisible.


Rocket cruiser 1960-ies.



The crew of the Japanese battleship. The figures of people can be estimated height of the pagoda-superstructure


Someone will say with disdain that ships sometimes sank from one torpedo, not understanding what the meaning of the word “torpedo” is. Specific marine ammunition for delivery to the target hundred kilograms of explosives! On land, this amount of explosives would be enough to smash a whole quarter. Plus, the absolute incompressibility of the aquatic environment (a tenfold increase in the force of the explosion).


And this moment is truly great,
when under the thunder of orchestras and ovations he
startled, off the ground
- the one from which we can not tear myself away ...


Ceremony of the withdrawal of the K-551 submarine “Vladimir Monomakh” from the stacking shop.
Author:
78 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 12 July 2016 06: 04
    +12
    Yes, this is something! Photo of the "Orlan" building in front of the factory buildings.
    1. 73bor
      73bor 12 July 2016 08: 02
      +5
      It was interesting to look at the "Orlan" at the outfitting wall. St. Isaac's Cathedral looked like a poor relative, and the ship's shadow covered the whole block!
  2. D-Master
    D-Master 12 July 2016 06: 45
    +17
    Very nice selection of photos. Many thanks. "Orlan" just admires .... And the captain against the background of Queen Mary - just great.
    1. Leto
      Leto 12 July 2016 07: 30
      +21
      Quote: D-Master
      And the captain against the backdrop of Queen Mary - just great.

      When I went to sea for the first time on a dry cargo ship (I worked as a mechanic) it seemed like a big ship, but when we passed a supertanker, which was going empty and the edges of the propellers burst out of the water ... to say "it took my breath away" is not just a little, just insignificant ... It was something ... Such a huge, such power.
    2. moskowit
      moskowit 12 July 2016 20: 26
      +2
      Impressive There is no limit to human creativity and handicraft.
      When I read in a book about armored steels that at the beginning of the 20th century the armor belts of armored ships were made of plates (size not specified), hammering them together into a "dovetail" and then, naturally, riveted, I was "impressed" for a long time. ... Knowledgeable people will understand me ... How all this was done on the then metal-cutting equipment is a question. Or just not familiar with the technological process? ... what good
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 12 July 2016 20: 53
        0
        Yes, the thickness of the plates 300-400 mm. what
      2. alex86
        alex86 12 July 2016 23: 15
        +3
        Quote: moskowit
        Or just not familiar with the process?

        Some time ago, I was presented with the builder's manual in 1908 (if I’m not mistaken) in 2 volumes. So at that time, the knowledge of a civil engineer significantly exceeded what they gave us in 79-84, and much more than what most of the current graduates go from calculating water supply, sewage, ventilation, building structures to the welding machine (manufacturing, and apparently it would not surprise anyone in construction conditions). At the same time, everything is very concrete and practical. Outwardly, it looks like we have forgotten a lot.
  3. Bureaucrat
    Bureaucrat 12 July 2016 06: 46
    +6
    That is why you cannot cut everything into metal, you must at least leave something as "Aurora" for memory, so that other generations would see it. It would be nice now to wander around the "October Revolution" (Gangut).
  4. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 12 July 2016 06: 48
    +15
    Dockwise Vanguard this is a monster, for me it's almost a floating city.
  5. Alex_59
    Alex_59 12 July 2016 06: 52
    +12
    Now is a plus. A selection of photos is original and interesting. The skill of the photographer decides everything - the angle of shooting and stage setting. To remove the battleship from urban development to show its size is a cool solution!

    True, again, it was imperative to insert my own fad about this:
    A close acquaintance with such a colossus will quickly reduce the number of "couch experts" scamming posts on the Internet: "one rocket - and bul-bul." Sitting on the couch often just do not understand what it is.
    Without this in any way, even in such an entertaining selection? Mame moe ... stop
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 12 July 2016 07: 08
      +8
      Quote: Alex_59
      True, again, it was imperative to insert my own fad about this:
      A close acquaintance with such a colossus will quickly reduce the number of "couch experts" scamming posts on the Internet: "one rocket - and bul-bul." Sitting on the couch often just do not understand what it is. Without this in any way, even in such an entertaining selection? Mame moe ...

      This is Kaptsov wink
      The selection of photos is a huge plus, the author’s comments on this article are a huge minus. Because I don’t put anything request
      Well, Kaptsov can’t write anything without pathos and exaggeration, and epithets radically change the idea of ​​the described object (phenomenon, case), which can lead to an erroneous opinion of readers lol
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 12 July 2016 07: 25
        +10
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Well, Kaptsov cannot do without pathos and exaggeration

        How much I read his articles, he eternally violently exaggerates them, then let's say about airplanes, without understanding the entire history of trials, trial and error, its development and other things, it will wildly flurodros at any kind of prodigy.
        For example, he began to flog a fever about Mustang, forgetting about Spitfire. Or kulstori about the A-5 Vigellent concept whistled by the Soviets, supposedly from which they made the MiG-25. And so on, not to mention the fap on the half-wooden armored carrier Zumwalt.
        One thing pleases is the eternal holivor in kamenty. wassat
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 12 July 2016 09: 42
        +4
        hi Welcome Andrew
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Well, Kaptsov can’t write anything without pathos and exaggeration, and epithets radically change the idea of ​​the described object (phenomenon, case), which can lead to an erroneous opinion of readers

        Well Oleg, he, such yes . The photos are of course credible, let’s say, I was always impressed by the supertanker ... well, just huge !!! Well, such as ...
        A close acquaintance with such a colossus will quickly reduce the number of "couch experts" scamming posts on the Internet: "One rocket - and bul-bul." Sitting on the couch often just do not understand what it is.

        Those who sit on the sofa may not understand, but those who are sitting unfortunately at rest remember the battleship Barhem 3 torpedoes and 4 minutes of life, the heavy cruiser Indianapolis 3 torpedoes and 12 minutes of life, the Cruiser General Belgrano 2 torpedoes and 27 minutes of life. You can certainly say that a torpedo is not a rocket! But the modern anti-ship missile system has never even got into a battleship or cruiser, so there is nothing to compare with.
        1. 100-2
          100-2 12 July 2016 09: 54
          0
          missiles of the PCR .. maybe not very modern but it was .. Falkland .. Egypt .. yes and ours in the Georgians .. the truth is not really PCR but enough
          1. Santa Fe
            12 July 2016 10: 26
            -1
            Quote: 100-2
            Falkland .. Egypt .. Yes, and our Georgians .. the truth is not quite PKR but enough

            Was there at least one cruiser?
        2. Santa Fe
          12 July 2016 10: 25
          0
          At least something new
          Quote: Serg65
          battleship "Barhem" 3 torpedoes and 4 minutes of life

          For the sake of decency would have looked at the date of construction
          bookmark - 1913 year when nothing was heard about submarines

          dreadnought of the First World War, when they didn’t even think about the anti-torpedo protection + general imperfection of the layout and technology
          Quote: Serg65
          heavy cruiser "Indianapolis" 3 torpedoes and 12 minutes of life

          A stupid "Washington" with an artificially limited displacement and characteristics
          Quote: Serg65
          The cruiser "General Belgrano" 2 torpedoes and 27 minutes of life.

          Class "B" cruiser with artificially limited performance (London Treaty, 1930)


          And then tell me again that Kaptsov couldn’t argue anything on the merits
          At least once, damn, normal examples led

          At your leisure - read about the Kenya KRL and the results of torpedo hits in Littorio, Vittorio Vennito, North Caroline or Yamato (1944)
          1. Kars
            Kars 12 July 2016 10: 33
            +5
            Here is a photo you used.
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 12 July 2016 13: 24
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For the sake of decency would have looked at the date of construction
            bookmark - 1913 year when nothing was heard about submarines

            dreadnought of the First World War, when they didn’t even think about the anti-torpedo protection + general imperfection of the layout and technology

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            A stupid "Washington" with an artificially limited displacement and characteristics

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Class "B" cruiser with artificially limited performance (London Treaty, 1930)

            Oh, yes, yes, yes .... I apologize to Oleg, all these ships of the wrong system, and you won’t even call them monsters!
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And then tell me again that Kaptsov couldn’t argue anything on the merits
            At least once, damn, normal examples led

            For God's sake ... Will the battleship Musashi, born in 42, suit you? Super fortress with a lot of anti-aircraft artillery 10 torpedoes 9h 20 min life and bul. Battleship "Prince of Wales" born in 1941 1,5 hours of life and overkill! The battleship "Roma", born in 1942, two progenitors of the anti-ship missile "Fritz-X" 25 minutes of life.
            Oleg is difficult for you to please, and surely these ships are not perfect for you?
            1. Santa Fe
              12 July 2016 18: 42
              +2
              Quote: Serg65
              all these ships are not the same system

              Naturally, they had artificially reduced survivability and resistance to combat damage
              Quote: Serg65
              Super fortress with a lot of anti-aircraft artillery 10 torpedoes 9ch 20 min life and boules boules.

              Hours of attack of eight aircraft carrier wings, 10 torpedo hits, 9 hours of resistance

              This is enough for one RCC?
              Quote: Serg65
              two progenitors of the PKR "Fritz-X"

              Show at least one PKR with a warhead of 1300 kg
              Quote: Serg65
              Battleship "Roma"

              Who was going to surrender to Malta and the crew refused to put out the fire in the MO.

              How about hitting Fritz in Littorio? Or two 907 kg BB in the battleship Vittorio Veneto.
              Quote: Serg65
              Battleship "Prince of Wales" born in 1941 1,5 hours of life and overkill!

              The weakest and smallest of LC of the second world

              By the way, how many torpedoes? Palyubu not one
              On single hits, the WWV battleships simply sneezed
            2. Alex_59
              Alex_59 12 July 2016 22: 04
              +3
              Quote: Serg65
              Oh, yes, yes, yes .... I apologize to Oleg, all these ships of the wrong system, and you won’t even call them monsters!

              It reminds me of the memoirs of German generals. The Russians had a T-34, and this is not fair, we did not have a T-34. The Russians had a winter, but that’s not fair. The Russians had open spaces, but this is not fair. The Russians evacuated their industry, but this is not fair. Here, too. That one had the wrong design, that one was filled up, the third one didn’t know how to fight - all this is not fair. Idealists build invincible Tiger tanks and battleships Yamato. Realists carry them with the help of primitive T-34 and tin Pepelats. Absolutely not honestly endure. Good luck to the idealists - we need to beat someone. smile
              1. Santa Fe
                13 July 2016 10: 41
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                It reminds me of the memoirs of German generals.

                Sea, ships, torpedoes

                here eprst memoirs of the German generals? nothing to add on the merits?
                thesis: military highly protected ship has an enormous vitality margin
                such that even heavily damaged units continued to fight (Kenya, Colorado, the same Edinburgh). And there is nothing even to think of sinking such a ship with a single bomb hit or equivalent (RCC)

                Will you argue with that?
                Quote: Alex_59
                Idealists build invincible Tiger tanks and Yamato battleships. Realists endure them with primitive T-34 and tin Pepelians.

                If we talk about BTT, then there is not a single example when "primitive pepelatsy" defeated those. superior to their enemy. 90 German armored vehicles of all types were destroyed by about the same number of Soviet equipment, which fully corresponded to those. the level of the enemy. T-000 = PzKpfw IV, Hetzer, etc.

                Just like the Germans (a handful of Tiger breakthrough tanks), the SA armored forces also had ultimatum combat vehicles. From KV (beginning of the war) to ISU-152
                And there is no mystery about it.
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 13 July 2016 13: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  90 000 German armored vehicles of all types were defeated by about the same number of Soviet equipment, which fully corresponded to those. enemy level. T-34 = PzKpfw IV, Hetzer, etc.

                  During the Second World War, the USSR produced 74 100 tanks and 21 600 self-propelled guns + received 11 600 tanks from the Lendlize.
                  Germany produced during the Second World War 21 600 tanks and 22 000 self-propelled guns

                  Total 107 Soviet armored vehicles against 300 German. And this is "about the same number of Soviet technology"? The difference is 43 times.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Just like the Germans (a handful of Tiger breakthrough tanks), the SA armored forces also had ultimatum combat vehicles. From KV (beginning of the war) to ISU-152

                  Tiger 1, Tiger 2, Ferdinand, SturmTigr = 2000 machines
                  KV-1, KV-85, IS-1, IS-2, SU / ISU-122 and SU / ISU-152 = 12 432 machines.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    13 July 2016 19: 50
                    -2
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Total 107 Soviet armored vehicles against 300 German. And this is "about the same number of Soviet technology"? The difference is 43 times.

                    once Kars and I sabatsali cool article on the topic:
                    https://topwar.ru/25238-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera-otkroveniya-viktora-suvorov

                    a.html

                    Wehrmacht industry released ... 8500 tank chassis PzKpfw II. 2000 of them became tanks PzKpfw II. But what happened to the others? Rotted out of stock? Abducted by British commandos?


                    Here, for example, Sd.Kfz.251. According to German data, during the war years more than 15 000 machines of this type were produced. "The most massive tank" PzKpfw IV was not close here.
                    Incidentally, German BTR was twice as heavy as the Soviet tank T-60.


                    Yes, the number of German armored vehicles was enormous. Some sources call numbers up to 90 000 units of tanks, self-propelled guns, captured armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers and specialized samples of armored vehicles. The simple fact speaks about their number - according to the German classification, the heavy armored personnel carrier wore the Sd.Kfz.251 index, i.e. was the 251 th model of the military equipment of the Wehrmacht.

                    I wonder what is hidden under other indices? For example, Sd.Kfz.11 or Sd.Kfz.138 / 2? Try to solve these simple puzzles and you will surely learn a lot of new and interesting things.
                    .
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Tiger 1, Tiger 2, Ferdinand, SturmTigr = 2000 machines

                    The repair and evacuation capabilities of the Wehrmacht were several times higher than the capabilities of the Soviet repair brigades. There is evidence that some "Tigers" underwent 10 or more restoration repairs after serious combat damage
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 13 July 2016 20: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Repair and evacuation capabilities of the Wehrmacht

                      So I say that when there is a global drain in all respects, it remains only to make excuses: "but we have better repair and evacuation capabilities!" "Steeper, cooler", the Soviet tankman replies, adding in chalk the inscription "Got it!" on the Reichstag laughing
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      there is evidence that some "Tigers" have undergone 10 or more recovery repairs after serious combat damage

                      This is not interesting to anyone. The war is lost. So they didn’t go there, they underwent few repairs. There is no result. You understand, nobody needs a process for the sake of the process. If your client ordered coffee, then he is unlikely to be happy with your answer that he was brewed coffee 10 times, but he is still not ready.

                      In general, ARVs and armored personnel carriers are far from a tank in terms of cost and complexity of production. They do not have the most expensive and time-consuming component - aiming devices and weapons. So armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles do not go into the overall standings - this is a completely different class of technology.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        13 July 2016 20: 53
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        there is a global drain on all parameters

                        Do you agree that the number of Wehrmacht armored vehicles was 90 thousand units?

                        and this is not 43, because you were wrong

                        ps / article, then at least read the link?
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        but our repair and evacuation capabilities are steeper! "

                        This is not a justification of the Germans, it is a fact.

                        The SA fighters were opposed by a much larger number of them. armored vehicles than consider Rezun and Beshanov. The Germans restored the broken machinery directly in the field. The new engine, transmission and instruments - while according to the documents all the same tank.
                        In general, BREM and BTR is not a tank for the cost and complexity of production. They do not have the most expensive and time-consuming component - aiming devices and weapons.

                        Sometimes you start to annoy your impenetrable deafness to the facts.

                        On the basis of Sd.Kfz.251, a wide range of specialized vehicles was produced: artillery tractor, armored ambulance, ammunition carrier, 80 self propelled mortar, self-propelled flamethrower, command and control vehicle, self-propelled anti-aircraft installations, machine sappers, car signalers, SAU with anti-tank 75 mm gun ...

                        There were such “exotic” cars based on Sd.Kfz.251, such as a self-propelled infrared searchlight (to support the operation of night vision devices for Panther tanks), a direction finder for conducting counter-battery wrestling Schallaufnahmepanzerwagen and a multiple-launch rocket system Wurframen 280 mm!
                        Cranes, winches, mounted armor kits, assault bridges, radio stations, various surveillance devices - equipment of the German armored personnel carriers could envy any tank allies.


                        Naturally, this is far from the T-60 durability and labor intensity of production, it was twice as heavy and stuffed with the most diverse high-tech machine
                      2. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 14 July 2016 00: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The SA fighters were opposed by a much larger number of them. armored vehicles than consider Rezun and Beshanov. The Germans restored the broken machinery directly in the field. The new engine, transmission and instruments - while according to the documents all the same tank.

                        But the Germans did not resist a much larger number of Soviet tanks? Russian tanks apparently did not repair. I would like to know the statistics - how many repairs did the Germans make with their unique repair forces during the war years? Do you have figures for the Germans? Let's compare.
                        Here are the data on the Red Army:
                        During the war years, 420 000 repairs of tanks and self-propelled guns were made. Of them:
                        279 300 repairs by Army forces
                        115 900 repairs by the Front
                        17 600 repairs by central subordination
                        9 700 repairs by industry.

                        Well, how is it for you? What did you write about the weakness of repair crews there? 94% of the army did repairs in the field. 420 000 times new devices, a transmission engine - and according to the documents one is not a new tank.
                        Information given on fundamental work: Solyankin A.G., Zheltov I.G., Kudryashov K.N. - Domestic Armored Vehicles of the twentieth century. Volume2. 15-16 Pages.
                        We read in the same place: For the first time in the world in the 1943 year, mobile repair (PTRZ) and tank aggregate (PTARZ) plants were created. By the end of the war, the Red Army had 27 armored repair plants, 4 mobile tank repair plants and 9 mobile tango units. The aggregate repair method was widely used, which made it possible to improve the quality of repairs and accelerate the return of combat vehicles to service.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sometimes you start to annoy your impenetrable deafness to the facts.

                        Smile - it annoys everyone (C) Vasily Strelnikov smile
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There were such "exotic" cars based on Sd.Kfz.251, as a self-propelled infrared spotlight

                        ABOUT! This is a test! You also put this device in the first line of troops, does it burn the T-34 with a searchlight? Let's be honest - combat vehicles separately, auxiliary separately. So ammunition carriers and spotlights will not count.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        14 July 2016 07: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        420 000 once new devices, engine transmission - and according to the documents one is not a new tank.

                        Where it is indicated that every time a major overhaul
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        What did you write about the weakness of the repair teams? 94% of repairs the army did in the field.

                        Repair is different. From cosmetic to capital

                        Fact - the Soviet army did not have such a count of BREM and evacuators
                        as well as the number of captured modernized armored vehicles, read about the Marder-3 SAU with Soviet guns
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        This device you also put in the first line of troops

                        Generally his purpose. Go to the night battle with the tanks, highlighting their goals
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Let's be honest - fighting vehicles separately, auxiliary separately. So the ammunition transporters and searchlights will not count.

                        Will go
                        anti-aircraft gun on the chassis of the tank - will protect the entire tank column during the raid

                        armored medavakuator - to save an experienced crew, who after the hospital will return to the front and become more dangerous than recruits-salagi

                        an ammunition carrier - to bring shells during the battle, the most important function, which, unfortunately, was decided by us with blood and sweat of heroes

                        The combat value of a vehicle is determined by its use. We focused only on linear "thirty-fours" and light tanks. It is a pity that among the thousands of these vehicles there were no medevac trucks and other special equipment. would help save many lives
                      4. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 14 July 2016 08: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Where it is indicated that every time a major overhaul

                        And where did you indicate that the Germans each had a major overhaul? Where are the statistics for at least the total number of repairs? You do not have these numbers. Therefore, the claim that the German repair system was more efficient is not provable. I do not believe that this statement is false, it may be true - but you cannot prove it. So do not make conclusions that the Germans restored their small tank fleet by 10 times from the ashes. This is just a hypothesis, an assumption.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Fact - the Soviet army did not have such a count of BREM and evacuators

                        Did I argue with that? No, I didn’t argue with that. I just said that the massive Soviet TANKS and self-propelled guns (not armored vehicles in general, namely only those that directly destroy the enemy on the battlefield) ensured the victory of the USSR. And the small but high-quality German tanks and self-propelled guns ensured the defeat of Germany. That is, we have a living example - a massive, but not perfect tank wins a better, but small German tank.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Generally his purpose. Go to the night battle with the tanks, highlighting their goals

                        But without destroying Soviet tanks, right? Well, why this argument? A searchlight is a support machine. It is undoubtedly useful, but the main work is still done by tank guns. Do not you think in the combat ship's staff all sorts of measuring bots and soil scows, right?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The combat value of a machine is determined by its use.

                        That's it. The combat value of tanks in the ability to destroy the enemy direct fire. The USSR riveted such technology in 2,5 times more than the Germans. It is a fact.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        We focused only on linear "thirty-fours" and light tanks.

                        And this emphasis was the path to victory. And the Germans sprayed precious forces on secondary equipment. Tanks made quality based on technical superiority to the detriment of numbers. While the blitzkrieg worked, it worked. But not in Russia, where a slightly different scope.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It is unfortunate that among the thousands of these vehicles, medical tow trucks and other special equipment were not provided. would help save many lives

                        This is undeniable. This is a mistake in the military construction of the Red Army. But a mistake on the scale of World War II is not fatal. It would be worse if we abandoned the mass construction of the T-34 in favor of these very tow trucks and other things. German quality would prevail if the T-34 were released in the same quantities as the PzIV.
                      5. Santa Fe
                        14 July 2016 10: 56
                        -1
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        You do not have these numbers. Hence the statement that the German repair system was more efficient is not provable.

                        Considering your knowledge in tank affairs (pepelats against tigers), nothing is provable here at all. You are simply deaf to the facts and treat them as horrible. Why do I pull out repair statistics at all if there is no indication in it of the amount of work performed?

                        Wehrmacht repair capabilities were higher, just look at the number of BREM. Or converted trophy technique.
                        About the 10 Tigers restored in a row - a person whose opinion I trust told me. With a huge archive of photos, where they are literally restored from a pile of iron
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        (not armored vehicles in general, namely, only those that directly destroy the enemy on the battlefield

                        Do you even understand what you wrote

                        A tank is not always needed in general combat. Sometimes you just need to establish a connection under fire or take ammunition to the battery. Or determine where the enemy is firing from (counter-battery radar / noise detector)
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        But not destroying Soviet tanks, right? Well, why this dispute?

                        Besides, this "device" accompanied tanks in the night battle!
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        It is undoubtedly useful, but the main work is still done by tank guns.

                        Whom they will shoot without seeing the target

                        Special machine for providing night tank breaks, new tactics of the end of the war (Balaton). Without it, this could not be in principle.
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The combat value of tanks in the ability to destroy the enemy by direct fire

                        Do you think that you could not do the BTR with a 75 mm gun or a 280 mm jet mortar?

                        And in order for all this good to get to the line of contact with the enemy - it is desirable that he not be bombed from above (ZSU). And in time they brought ammunition in the heat of battle. Without unnecessary delays, directly through the sweep plots.

                        Do you think this is IMPORTANT?

                        ps / according to statistics, on the account of anti-tank artillery - 50% of wrecked tanks. VET - the main enemy of the BTT, if that
                      6. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 14 July 2016 12: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Given your knowledge of tank affairs (pepelats vs tigers)

                        By pepelets, I meant the deck aircraft of the USA that killed Yamato. For some reason you decided that it was about tanks.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The restored Tigers about 10 once in a row were told to me by a person whose opinion I trust.

                        Scientific basis, you will not say anything. I will write it down in the quotation book. I trust here - I don’t trust there. I remember you still don’t trust the Agat concern. But NIIDAR is already the opposite - you trust. I recommend one more convincing argument in scientific controversy, one Armenian in the market suggested to me - "I swear by my mother!" laughing
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why did I pull out statistics on repairs, if it does not indicate the amount of work performed?

                        To give the discussion at least a little scientific validity. No figures have been received from you at all. Only the opinion of a certain person whom we should all trust.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You think this armored personnel carrier couldn’t do this with the 75 mm gun
                        And how many of these cars were released, you can find out?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Special machine for providing night tank breaks, new tactics of the end of the war (Balaton). Without it, this could not be in principle.

                        Fantasy. Why did they lose the war? In everything, the Red Army is bad, except that it won. How so?
                      7. Santa Fe
                        14 July 2016 20: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        By pepelets, I meant the deck aircraft of the USA that killed Yamato. For some reason you decided that it was about tanks.

                        You are there and about T-34 crap wrote
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        not one Armenian in the market

                        Unlike Armenian mother, you can communicate with Kars on your own

                        The two of you and I know less about tanks than he does. And once again you skillfully traveled around the issue with the number of BREM and converted trophy equipment. because it directly indicates the possibility of the Germans
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        To give the discussion at least a little scientific substantiation.

                        You would immediately draw the integral sign to make everything clear)))

                        Or here's a table of anti-aircraft ammunition on ships of the Navy
                        to give the discussion a scientific character))))
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        And how many of these cars were released, you can find out?

                        You do not leave the topic please

                        In general combat, special vehicles have almost greater combat value than linear tanks. I have already brought prims with a b / n carrier, armored cable conduit and ZSU

                        As for the German armored personnel carriers with cannons - thousands of units are produced
                        SdKfz 251 - set everything, MLRS, mortars, 37 mm anti-tank guns, 20 mm automatic Flakes - 200-400 shot / min., 75 mm guns

                        and this is not the only model of the BTR, for example, the 13-tonne Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper with the MLRS. How can Soviet light tanks be considered, but to avoid such cars?

                        Let, as a witness, confirm by right:
                        Yes, victory was not easy for us.
                        Yes, the enemy was brave.
                        All the more our fame.
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Fantasy. What war then lost?

                        Ek puts you. We are talking about a combat vehicle that has sucked a lot of blood and brought a lot of problems about Balaton. And not about the strategic results of WWII

                        90 vs. 107, are these not your tales about 43 and 107, or do you think the Russian Mongols are dumber than the enemy 2,5 times?
                      8. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 15 July 2016 06: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You would immediately draw an integral sign so that everything becomes clear

                        You have no figures for the Germans. Fact. Drain.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        As for the German armored personnel carriers with cannons - thousands of units are produced

                        You do not have numbers for the number of 251 x APCs with 75-mm guns. Fact. Drain.
                        (Do you know why? Because they were made by 250 pieces, and 150 of them are short-barrels laughing )
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        90 vs 107, these are not your tales about 43 and 107
                        I think the battlefield cars. 251 is an armored personnel carrier. CONVEYOR! It is not intended for combat in a single formation with tanks. They need armor to protect the infantry from shell fragments in places of concentration at the starting lines. The criterion is whether or not armor is secondary. 251-th this is an armored truck, like our post-war BTR-152 based on ZIL. You bring support vehicles and combat vehicles into one pile. With this approach, the Soviet 107 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns must be added and armored vehicles BA-64, BA-10, BA-20 - these are 9000 units. But I do not want to count them consciously, since machines armed with machine guns and light armor played second roles, just like your 251. If you consider not only tanks and self-propelled guns, but also the chassis for mounting special equipment on the basis of trucks (no matter whether they are armored or not - armor is the cheapest element here), then from the Soviet side it is logical to consider memory and ZPTU based on trucks and MLRS BM- 13. Your Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper, although armored, did not fire from the trenches of the first line, but from closed positions, like Katyusha. And the Germans didn’t let go of the memory with flasks either from a good life.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How can Soviet light tanks be considered, but to bypass such vehicles ??

                        Do not bypass, but count separately. Soviet light tanks are designed for combat at the forefront. BTR, ZSU, MLRS, armored vehicles with machine guns - are not intended for this. They have their own specific task. They need armor (if they have one) to increase survivability during shelling, and to protect calculations from random bullets.
                      9. Santa Fe
                        15 July 2016 10: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Because they were made of 250 pieces, and 150 of them are short barrels

                        Sd. Kfz.251 / 22 - mittlerer Schutzenpanzerwagen mit 7,5 cm Pak 40
                        Manufactured 268 pcs.

                        laughing
                        What a funny armored vehicle hahaha

                        And this, as you already guessed, is only one (22-i) modification of the SdKpz 251 model
                        What did the rest of 20 look like?

                        anti-aircraft installation (mod. 17 and 21-i) - built 600 units.
                        combat module of 3-x automatic guns. firepower, like the three Soviet light tanks.


                        flamethrower armored vehicle (mod. 16) - made 387 units. I wonder how often they were on the front line, burning bunkers and bunkers?

                        There was also a 10 mod. with 37 mm anti-tank gun, nine - with short-barreled 75 mm gun (this is exactly what you said) mod. 2 - self-propelled mortar, multiple rocket systems


                        laugh to tears
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The 251 is an armored personnel carrier. CONVEYOR! It is not intended for combat in a single formation with tanks.

                        Sd.Kfz.250 / 10 - leichter Schützenpanzerwagen 3,7 cm Pak
                        o-ppa! anti-tank gun
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Soviet light tanks are designed for fighting on the front line. BTR, ZSU, MLRS, armored cars with machine guns are not intended for this.

                        I wonder where they were going to use Sd. Kfz.251 / 12 - mittlerer Messtrupp und Geraetpanzerwagen (armored vehicle for artillery fire spotters). Probably in the deep rear
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        They need armor (if they have one) to increase the survivability of the shelling, and to protect the crew from accidental bullets.

                        Considering that 251 is not inferior in light armor to light tanks
                        At the same time, surpassing any Soviet T-60 in firepower and equipment (radio stations, surveillance devices, mounted armor sets)

                        Fantasies about the impossibility of applying such monsters on the front line simply look sucked from the finger. Admit it is better that for the last couple of days I have been freezing bullshit, from which it’s probably now embarrassing

                        No offense. Just do not deny the obvious
                      10. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 15 July 2016 12: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Fantasies about the impossibility of using such monsters on the front line look just sucked from the finger.
                        I do not want to comment in parts, boring. You understand very well that the equipment you dumped in a heap is completely different in purpose.
                        If we set the task of calculating the main striking force of that war - the battlefield equipment, then it’s fair not to take into account clean armored personnel carriers (in the form of infantry transporters) for the German army, MLRS (these should be considered as artillery systems), communication vehicles, ambulances, artillery tractors etc. This is a special technique, which by design should not have direct contact with the enemy. But it’s appropriate to take PTOs based on armored personnel carriers or ZSU into account, I don’t argue with that. Another question is that they are negligible among the Germans, they will not change the picture. In the USSR, similarly, armored cars are not taken into account.

                        Well, if you set out to consider everything that goes in the front-line lane, then you should consider the Soviet BM-13, and the ZPU and ZSU based on trucks, and armored cars, tracked artillery tractors, etc. Even if you think so, even if it were, the USSR produced more than the Germans' technology. 1,8 to 2,5 times.

                        And my initial thought was essentially the following: the performance characteristics of military equipment should be in harmony with its mass character. It is possible to improve the performance characteristics until such an improvement allows the production of a series of such equipment to be established in numbers not less than that of the enemy. As soon as your product becomes prohibitively invincible, it becomes piece-wise - and this is the path to defeat. It’s better not to make such an outstanding combat vehicle, but to make it massive - that’s the way to victory.
                      11. Santa Fe
                        15 July 2016 20: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The equipment you dumped in a pile is completely different in purpose.

                        That did not prevent its use in battle on the front line
                        successfully complementing and reinforcing each other, these armored vehicles became one of the components of the success of Panzervaffe at the beginning of the war, and allowed them to save their strength and hold out until 1945.

                        Each of the vehicles (conveyor with assault bridges, second-hand carrier, cable laying, armored medevacuator) had its own tactical niche. and try to say what is more important - a linear tank or a ZSU, which during a raid will help save the entire convoy.

                        linear tank or counter battery machine. Which under fire will determine the position of the enemy's battery and the dive bombers will point at it.

                        What is more important for a unit in a night battle: another line tank or infrared searchlight (1 Falke armored personnel carrier per tank platoon)

                        Stop dodging and deny the obvious. Previously, you, Alex, did not hesitate to admit mistakes.
                        The absence of such equipment from the Red Army in any front-line situation became a problem for our soldiers, a delay in the offensive and a reason for unnecessary losses. And it was explained by the banal lack of the ability to quickly make changes in the BTT projects and establish new production lines.
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Another question is what their insignificantly little Germans

                        Alex has obviously gone mad
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        As soon as your product becomes prohibitively invincible, it becomes piece - and this is the way to defeat. It is better not to make such an outstanding combat vehicle, but to make it massive - this is the way to victory.

                        The idea is interesting, but where is the Soviet-German confrontation during the years of WWII

                        In contrast to 46 thousand T-34s, the Germans put on the front about the same number of equal in quality and performance characteristics of armored vehicles - from the "troika" to Panther, Hetzer, Marder, Brummber, Nashorn.

                        And instead of thousands of light tanks and SU-76 - not less number of light armored vehicles on the chassis of high traffic. Many of which, in terms of weapons and equipment, could give odds to Allied medium tanks

                        And what claims to the two thousand super-heavy self-propelled guns and elite breakthrough tanks. Normal technology, occupied its tactical niche. Naturally, they were protected. Exposed only on the most important areas of impact. And they even specially released a series of 300 46-ton Bergepanters to evacuate the wounded Tigers.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 July 2016 18: 23
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For the sake of decency would have looked at the date of construction
            bookmark - 1913 year when nothing was heard about submarines

            dreadnought of the First World War, when they didn’t even think about the anti-torpedo protection + general imperfection of the layout and technology

            Here we play, here we do not play, there is a greasy stain - they wrapped the fish. © smile

            In fact, in the mid-20s - early 30s, all the "Queens" went through the first modernization, during which they received boules that doubled the depth of the PTZ:
            Horizontal boules were divided into upper and lower parts. The upper part, extending outward by 91,5 cm on each side, was divided by vertical bulkheads installed at a distance of 4,88 m from each other. She covered her armor belt. The lower part, protruding outward at 1,83 m on each side, stretched from the bottom to the bottom edge of the armor belt. Here, the gap between the vertical bulkheads was 6,1 m. At the same time, the distance from the outside to the anti-torpedo bulkhead (in the middle) increased from 3,06 to 6,1 m, which protected against the explosion of a torpedo warhead weighing 335 kg.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            torpedo hits at Littorio, Vittorio Vennito, North Caroline or Yamato (1944)

            Uh-huh ... especially "Norka" - LK was disabled by a single torpedo hit.
            This was the only test of the PTZ of the new American battleships, and she could not stand it. Although it must be admitted that the hit was in the most vulnerable part. The speed of the battleship was limited to 18 knots and only for a short time it could give 24 knots, tower No. 1 could shoot only in case of emergency, the armor protection in the region of 37-59 frames was significantly weakened, as well as 15% of the left side’s PTZ, 528 tons were lost fuel (8%).
            1. Santa Fe
              12 July 2016 18: 52
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In fact, in the mid-20s - early 30s, all the "Queens" went through the first modernization, during which they received boules that doubled the depth of the PTZ:

              All of these are half measures that have proven ineffective in practice (Barham)
              Quote: Alexey RA
              At the same time, the distance from the outside to the anti-torpedo bulkhead (mid-section) increased from 3,06 to 6,1 m

              It is in the middle

              And how much was in the cellar of the bow towers of the Civil Code. How did this PTZ look like, to which of the decks the bulkheads went? What thickness and design they were
              For the sake of interest - compare with PTZ and the measure to ensure the survivability of Vanguard

              an evacuation and counter-flood system, which absorbed the entire experience of the war years, six independent posts in the field of energy and durability, four turbo-generators of 480 kW each and four diesel generators of 450 kW, housed in eight compartments dispersed throughout the length of the ship. For comparison, the American “Iowa” had only two emergency diesel generators of 250 kW each (for the sake of justice, the “American women” had two echelons of GEM and eight main turbogenerators).
              Next: the alternation of boiler rooms and turbine units in “staggered order”, separation of lines of internal and external shafts from 10,2 to 15,7 meters, remote hydraulic control of steam line valves, ensuring the operation of turbines even in the case of complete (!) Flooding of turbine compartments ...

              Quote: Alexey RA
              LC was disabled by a single torpedo hit.

              Why are lying and exaggerating

              Battleship on the move, all artillery operates, except for the nose tower GK
              Power supply remained, losses among crew - 0,001%

              It is better to tell how to sink LK only hit RCC
  6. ICT
    ICT 12 July 2016 07: 14
    +3

    The anchor of the submarine pr. 941 “Shark”

    somehow got off with the anchor, but it could be deployed,
    By the way, the submarines in this respect are more interesting to compare in the elements and the dock there just a hidden contrast is felt

    can remake into an underwater carrier,


    1. ICT
      ICT 12 July 2016 07: 28
      +4
      Quote: TIT
      can remake into an underwater carrier,
  7. ICT
    ICT 12 July 2016 07: 30
    +2
    and these giants struggle with natural power

    1. ICT
      ICT 12 July 2016 07: 35
      +1
      yes what is it
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 12 July 2016 10: 16
        +4
        Quote: TIT
        yes what is it

        Or so ...
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 12 July 2016 10: 15
      +3
      Quote: TIT
      and these giants struggle with natural power

      To understand the greatness of the ocean, you need to show the size of the ship (with your permission)
  8. Leto
    Leto 12 July 2016 07: 35
    +4
    Before I went to the sea more than once I saw photos of warships, I didn’t particularly catch on. But the first warship that I saw (SKR Menzhinsky in Nakhodka) aroused admiration, what a beauty. And because I knew its characteristics, nothing special, but damn beautiful ...
    Life circumstances separated me from the sea, but the melancholy remained, thanks Oleg ...
    1. ICT
      ICT 12 July 2016 07: 43
      +1
      well, for relaxation wink
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 12 July 2016 07: 54
      +4
      The floating cranes are also impressive, for example, I saw the work of "Volgar" with my own eyes. Monster.

  9. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 12 July 2016 07: 48
    +6
    Have you seen my avatar? PKZ "F. Dzerzhinsky" built in 26, a former cable distributor, carrier of ZK from Vanino to Magadan, then PB and PKZ.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 12 July 2016 08: 30
      +4
      That's how handsome he was in his youth!
  10. inkass_98
    inkass_98 12 July 2016 07: 59
    +5
    For those who have never seen a ship close by - this may be something surprising. But we are people of the sea laughing , did not see the ocean, but also in the Black Sea there are worthy specimens, including and commerce - tankers, bulk carriers, and more. It is enough to ride from Novoross to Tuapse, you can get a lot of impressions from the habit, especially from the sight of a trough regularly sitting aground somewhere in the Gelendzhik area. Well, in Sochi comes across all kinds of things, at least commercial, at least cruise, at least military.
    And for the lack of (almost) bias in this particular article to Oleg hi .
  11. SIMM
    SIMM 12 July 2016 08: 05
    +2
    Monumentally, you will not say anything ...
  12. podgornovea
    podgornovea 12 July 2016 08: 12
    +2
    I put a plus for the photos.

    And for this: "several hundred kilograms of explosives! On land, this amount of explosives would be enough to destroy an entire block." - over would be a minus!

    As they say in Russia "lie, but don't lie"
  13. Dimy4
    Dimy4 12 July 2016 08: 27
    +1
    No matter how big the ship, the ocean on which it travels is vast. Here is such pathos. I liked the article.
    1. Lyubopyatov
      Lyubopyatov 12 July 2016 15: 03
      0
      No matter how ...
  14. neha
    neha 12 July 2016 08: 42
    +2
    The first "Orlan" was in the dock on the Kirov), so we climbed the 9-storey ladder to the poop). From keel to klotik, a 20-storey building)).
  15. Riv
    Riv 12 July 2016 08: 56
    +1
    It’s good that the author is not in love with airships ... :)
  16. Avenich
    Avenich 12 July 2016 09: 21
    0
    Without seeing the ships near, it is impossible to understand how enormous these machines are, and how they differ from everything that we used to meet on land.

    Without seeing a combat aircraft (sailing ship, ekranoplan, hovercraft, airship) close by, one cannot understand how enormous these machines are and how they differ from everything we are used to encountering. A walking excavator, by the way, looks the same masterpiece.
    1. Riv
      Riv 12 July 2016 11: 14
      0
      And the statue of Tsereteli? :) What size! What a form!
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 12 July 2016 11: 38
        0
        Yes, Peter is particularly impressive in his interpretation, on the banks of the Moscow river.
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 12 July 2016 17: 14
        0
        Tsereteli turns me back on what a passion for the body. Have you heard that he wants to install a 100-meter Christ in St. Petersburg? Already the Russian Orthodox Church asks: "get in touch with this ..."
  17. Vladimir
    Vladimir 12 July 2016 09: 27
    0
    Thank you for the selection. Looking at such colossus from close range it is even impossible to imagine the greatness of the ocean compared to them.
  18. neha
    neha 12 July 2016 09: 32
    +7
    "Kuznetsov" in Severomorsk in the roadstead.
    1. navy33
      navy33 12 July 2016 12: 56
      +1
      The beauty! Inspired ... Severomorsk ... Okolnaya Bay ... Eechhhhhehhh !!!
  19. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 12 July 2016 10: 09
    +8
    Great photo.
    Good article.
    But, vague doubts torment me, and Oleg himself was on a ship, a ship, a floating facility?
    Just watch this one. See, watch. So you can look at Empire, Moscow skyscrapers.
    But to be inside such a monster is quite another.
    Sleep on the deck.
    Or just lie down, feeling the trembling of the giant body from the work of mechanisms. Feel the vibration not just with your feet, but with your whole body.
    It creates a feeling - a living organism. MONSTERS living their lives.
    And then see the engine room. And get fucked by what he saw.
    It was possible in Tartus to observe the unloading of the tanker.
    At first, there was some kind of garbage, sitting lower than even our steamboat.
    But then, as his bulwark went to the height of our bridge, but they saw fouling cosmas - then it covered me.
    And then, in the Pacific Ocean, feeling the helplessness and limited capabilities of his "monster", who resists with all his might - against the Pacific storm by 10-11 points ..... covered again.
    From the knowledge that - What are our pieces of iron against NATURE?
    ...
    And only a creature intelligent, created from protoplasm, with an extremely narrow temperature range and living conditions - masters both monsters and NATURE.
    Person.
    1. Santa Fe
      12 July 2016 10: 45
      -1
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Or simply lie down, feeling the tremor of the giant hull from the work mechanisms. Feel the vibration is not just feet, and the whole body.
      It creates a feeling - a living organism. MONSTERS living their lives.

      TO GO ????

      Fault, lie only on warships. Where the 500 crew with a fig man and half have nothing to do, because they do not know how and do not want. the soldier is sleeping - the service is on

      On civil nobody lays, because the crew of the 6-8 people and it is necessary to make the maximum profit while the area is open. and if someone "lies" between the watches, he sleeps like dead sleep, because to put it back in an hour later and turn on the refrigerators. Then get the trawl and the fun begins for another couple of hours. All goods must be frozen and arranged as they should. Then throw the trawl back and go to bed for an hour. There is no watch as such at all, everyone works for a week, like robots. the cost of such a week is 10 rubles, that's what it takes to fuck up at sea

      "Lie down", I have no words

      and lie here here - admiral hour on the aircraft-carrying cruiser Minsk, 1986 year
      1. Leto
        Leto 12 July 2016 11: 21
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No one lies on civilians

        Come on Oleg. What are you saying? In your free time, lie as much as you want. If you really are not on the trawler during Putin’s, then yes, they won’t let you lie ...
        Now what to do on a cargo ship? Even on a watch in the car, there’s nothing special to do, see the maximum level of the file. They also drink tea on the bridge, turn on the autopilot and poison the bikes.
        I’m talking about dry cargo vessels, of course, fishermen have tin.
      2. Bashibuzuk
        Bashibuzuk 12 July 2016 11: 30
        +7
        Oleg.....
        I asked, actually, without any sub-flavors and other things.
        Was there? There was ... nothing more.
        ...
        I repeat once again - I served as the head of the RTS, he is also the commander of the BS-4 at the KSF. He finished the service as an assistant commander.
        Then he went to sea from the Klaipeda base of the trawl fleet.
        So who lies where and how - I can imagine well.
        .
        And the first time, touching a mighty iron beast, happened while studying in Kaliningrad. When it was possible to unload bulk carriers in order to earn a pretty penny. Then, in order to get a touch, they were laid right on the deck.
        And the beating of the steel heart of the sea "monster" was felt.
  20. ICT
    ICT 12 July 2016 13: 27
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    No one lies on civilians


    there in the shadow of the alleys walk


    1. Santa Fe
      12 July 2016 18: 29
      0
      Quote: TIT
      there in the shadow of the alleys walk

      Who walks - pay for the cruise from your pocket

      Who does not walk - work like robots. Cruise ship - special tin
      1. ICT
        ICT 12 July 2016 20: 30
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        cruisers - special tin

        lol

        spent almost twenty-five years in the US Navy, serving on six different ships, so I've had my fill of cruising, but if I have to cruise, give me a destroyer or frigate.
  21. ICT
    ICT 12 July 2016 13: 37
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Bashibzuk, lie only on warships.
  22. ICT
    ICT 12 July 2016 13: 52
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    "Lie down", I have no words

    drank coffee with a woman and provided people with work for several years

  23. Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 12 July 2016 15: 05
    +1
    To mobilize at least one of the yachts of "Russian businessman" Andrey Melnichenko to the Navy!
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 12 July 2016 17: 18
      0
      It will be cool
  24. Technologist
    Technologist 12 July 2016 18: 09
    +4
    SSV-33 "Ural" is also not frail, it was ((((and more "Peter"
  25. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 12 July 2016 19: 34
    +4
    Knowledge of the subject plus literary ability, Oleg Kaptsov is always interesting. good
  26. proud
    proud 12 July 2016 21: 32
    +2
    A selection of wonderful Bravo Kaptsov!
  27. Nicholas
    Nicholas 29 November 2016 11: 24
    0
    Without proper protection and escort, they are all just a big goal.
  28. Kenneth
    Kenneth 22 December 2016 20: 13
    0
    Gorgeous. Oleg - well done. Even the aircraft carrier took his place.