Military Review

Project 26 and 26 bis cruisers. Part of 2. “Italian footprint” and classification features

98

In this article, we will try to deal with the degree of participation of Italian specialists in the creation of the 26 and 26-bis cruisers, as well as with the position of the Soviet cruisers in the 30 international classification of the last century.


To begin with, let's refresh in our memory the “major milestones” of designing cruisers like the Kirov and Maxim Gorky.

15 April 1932 city approved the first operational technical task (HTA) of the cruiser.

July-August 1932 - A Soviet commission was sent and worked to Italy, whose task was to familiarize with the Italian shipbuilding industry, to select a prototype for the Soviet cruiser and to purchase a boiler-turbine power plant with a capacity of 100-120 thousand hp. The choice was made in favor of the Montekukkoli cruiser, and the commission offered to purchase a theoretical drawing and power plant of the latter.

19 March 1933 year approved the revised version of the "HTP" with the mechanisms (turbines) of the Italian cruiser "Montekukkoli". In accordance with the new HTA, the leadership of the Maritime Administration of the Red Army entrusts the Research Institute of Military Shipbuilding (NIVK) with the development of a draft design of the ship.

April 20 1933 years draft design NIVK approved.

8 May 1933 city The Red Army UMC leadership concluded an agreement with the Central Design Bureau for Shipbuilding (in other sources, “Special Shipbuilding”) of TsKBS-1 for the creation of a common (technical) cruiser project.

July 11 1933 city The Council of Labor and Defense approves the “Program of Naval Shipbuilding for 1933-1938”, which provided for the construction of eight light cruisers for the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific fleets.

14 May 1934 city An agreement was signed between the Italian firm Ansaldo and TsKBS-1 for which the Italians (among other things) pledged to supply the power plant of the Eugenio di Savoy cruiser and a complete set of documentation for setting up the production of such plants in the USSR. From this point on, Italian specialists are directly involved in the design of the 26 cruiser.

By September 1934 NIVK succeeds in developing a new conceptual design, according to which it is impossible to “lay” the 26 cruiser of the 6 project into the standard displacement of 500 t, and that the cruiser will turn out when the standard displacement increases to 6 970 t. technical project

In October 1934 Head of the development of the towers of the main caliber A.A. Florensky proposed to place in the turret of the 26 cruiser of the project not two, but three guns.

In November, the 1934 TsKBS-1 presented the technical design. However, the results of TsKBS-1 turned out to be even more discouraging - according to the presented calculations, the standard displacement of the cruiser should have reached 7 225 t, and the speed dropped to half a node. At the same time, insufficient booking and arming of the ship was noted.

5 November 1934 V. M. Orlov approves the replacement of two-gun towers with three-gun towers. At the same time, he sets the standard displacement of the 26 cruiser at the level of 7120 — 7170 t.

29th of December 1934 The Labor and Defense Council approves the final performance of the cruiser.



In the end, the 1934 (Unfortunately, there is no exact date. - Approx. ed.) The Ansaldo hands over to the Soviet side a theoretical draft of a cruiser that was tested in the Roman and Hamburg experimental basins.

The following is a revision of the draft cruiser by the TsKBS-1 and the laying of two ships of the 26 project in October 1935

20th of December 1936 The cruiser for the Baltic (the future Maxim Gorky) is being laid under the 26 project.

14th of January 1937 for the 26 project, a cruiser for the Black Sea (the future Molotov) is being laid.

In January, the 1937 the Kirov under construction is visited by the commander of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet L.M. Haller and proposes to alter the fighting and wheelhouse, as well as a number of other posts. In the future, there are ideas about improving body armor, etc.

В апреле 1937 года the final decision is made: the first two ships of the series (the Kirov and Voroshilov) are completed by the 26 project, and the two recently laid ships are completed by the 26-bis project - with enhanced armor and armament, an increased total fuel capacity and a modified superstructure.

June-August 1938 - Bookmark the last 26-bis cruisers (Kalinin and Kaganovich) for the Pacific fleet.

What did the Soviet cruisers end up with? Were they a copy of Italian, adjusted for 180-mm main caliber? Let's see the main tactical and technical characteristics of cruisers.



Of course, there is some “kinship” of the projects, but the differences between them are very large, and the matter is not limited to guns of the main caliber alone. For example, booking a Soviet and Italian cruisers has fundamental differences. The Italians staked on vertical protection and placed spaced booking on their ships (in addition to belt armor, also an armored partition to “catch” fragments from projectiles that pierced the main armor belt), but their horizontal defense was not good. Soviet cruisers, on the contrary, receive a very powerful armored abutment, which at the time of design is superior to that of almost all light cruisers of the world, but they refuse a spaced reservation of the board, limited to armored belts of moderate thickness. Interestingly, the Italians, providing a very good booking of the board, for some reason ignored the traverses, which they received significantly weaker protection: so the Eugenio di Savoy board was covered with an 70-mm belt and behind it also a 30-35-mm bulkhead , while the beam has only 50 mm of thickness. It is a rather strange decision, taking into account the fact that light cruisers are characterized both by a counter battle on converging courses, and a battle on departure, when booking the extremities is most essential. Soviet cruisers are more logical in this respect - the thickness of the onboard and traverse armor is the same.

There are other differences: the Soviet cruisers have a smaller displacement, but they have more fuel on them (if you compare the Kirov and the Montecuccoli and Eugenio di Savoy with the Maxim Gorky). The design of hulls differs, and even the geometric dimensions of the ships do not match. And it would be fine if the dimensions of the Soviet cruisers were proportionally smaller than the Italian ones, which would be completely explained by the smaller displacement of domestic ships. No, the Soviet cruisers are longer and wider than the Italian ones, but the draft of the Montekuccoli and Eugenio di Savoy is greater. Someone may say that several meters of length and several tens of centimeters of precipitation do not play a role, but this is not so - such changes substantially change the theoretical drawing of the ship.

We will look at the differences between the Italian and Soviet cruisers in more detail in the design description of the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis projects, but for now let us just note that neither the Kirov nor the Maxim Gorky are tracing paper overseas ships. We add that both the Italian and Soviet cruisers visually also had considerable differences:


Graphics S. Balakin and Elio Ando reduced to a single scale


But if “Kirov” is not the “180-mm copy” of “Montecuccoli” or “Eugenio di Savoia”, what is the role of the Italians in the creation of the Soviet cruiser? Here, unfortunately, there are a lot of questions that are waiting for their thoughtful researcher. History 26 project cruisers' design has been described many times, but very clearly, with various sources largely contradicting each other. That would seem to be a rather simple question: it is well known (and confirmed by all sources) that the power plant (EI) for our cruisers was acquired in Italy. But from which cruiser? After all, the EC "Montekuccoli" and "Eugenio di Savoia" differed from each other. A. Chernyshev and K. Kulagin in their book "Soviet Great Patriotic Cruisers" claim that the USSR bought the installation of the cruiser Eugenio di Savoia. But if we open the Encyclopedia of the Second World War cruisers. Hunters and Defenders "and see the section of Soviet cruisers (author - S. V. Patyanin), then we are surprised to find that the electric cruiser" Montekukkoli "was acquired. And, for example, A.V. Platonov, in his works, completely ignores this question, limiting himself to the phrase “the main power plant was purchased in Italy” without further specification.

The original documents could give answers, but unfortunately, it’s not so easy to find them: the author of this article could not find the text of the Ansaldo contract from 11 in May 1934. However, we have the “Help of the Shipbuilding Directorate of the UVKA RKKA about cooperation with the Italian company "Ansaldo" in the field of shipbuilding "from 11 in May 1934 g (i.e., drawn up three days before signing the contract - auth.) signed by the Head of the Shipbuilding Directorate of the UVMS RKKA Sivkov (hereinafter referred to as" Reference "). It says:

“I. As a result of receiving the mechanisms and technical assistance for shipbuilding from the Italian firm Ansaldo, a cruiser should be built with the following main elements: weapons: 6 - 180 mm guns in 3 twin towers; 6 - 100 mm anti-aircraft guns; 6 - 45 mm semiautomatic; 6 - 5 inch machine guns (a clear misprint, probably meant 0,5-inch, i.e. machine guns of 12,7-mm caliber - note auth.); 2 - 3 21 inch torpedo tubes; 2 - aircraft on a catapult; POOAO system of the Italian "Central"; barrage mines and depth charges in overload. Booking: board - 50 mm; deck - 50 mm. Travel speed - 37 nodes. The power of the main mechanisms - 126 500 l. with. (meaning power when forcing - approx. ed.) Navigation area - 12 hour. in full swing (xnumx miles). Econ. move with the rules. zap - 450 miles. Displacement - standard, 1400 thousand tons.
Ii. In the development of the contract the company will supply:
a) A complete set of main and auxiliary mechanisms - boilers, turbo and diesel dynamos, mine compressors, air-refrigerating machines, steering gear and other small mechanisms of the machine-boiler installation, completely identical to those of the Italian cruiser "E. di Savoia ", with all the working drawings, calculations and specifications for the electromechanical part. The mechanisms of this ship are the most modern in the Italian fleet and are manufactured by the company now for the nodal cruiser in the 36,5 building with a displacement of 6950 t.
b) Technological assistance on the production of the above mechanisms at the plants of the USSR, both in terms of metallurgy and in terms of machining and installation. Technological assistance will consist in transferring to the USSR plants all technical process data, supplying calibers, templates, devices and devices necessary for manufacturing these mechanisms, sending their highly qualified engineers (18 24) and technicians to the USSR to train and direct the work of our plants and, finally, training our engineers (12) and workers (10) in their factories.
c) A set of drawings, calculations and specifications for the hull part of the Montecuccoli cruiser, one of the newest cruisers of the Italian fleet entering 1935, as well as theoretical drawings and propellers for the cruiser and destroyer we designed. ”


Thus, it can be argued that the USSR acquired a complete set of power plant with all auxiliary mechanisms from Eugenio di Savoia (as evidenced by the similar capacity of the EU in this Italian and Soviet cruisers), while the Italians pledged to organize the production of similar plants in the Soviet Union . But then everything is again not clear: the document clearly states about the acquisition of “drawings, calculations and specifications” of the Montecuccoli hull, why then many authors (A. Chernyshev, K. Kulagin and others) indicate that the theoretical drawing of the cruiser Kirov was a revised version of the “Eugenio di Savoia”? How can this be explained?

It is possible that at the last moment, or even after the conclusion of the contract, it was decided to replace the “Montecuccoli” drawings with the “Eugenio di Savoy” drawings. But some phrases of the above “Help” hint that the sale of the theoretical drawing of the Italian cruiser is only part of the deal, and besides that the Italians have undertaken to create a new theoretical drawing for a specific project of the Soviet ship. Pay attention to: "... as well as theoretical drawings and drawings of propellers for the cruiser we designed ..." In addition, the fourth section of the "Reference" reads:

“The company guarantees the power and fuel consumption of the main [avnyh] mechanisms supplied by it, as well as mechanisms built in the USSR according to its drawings and instructions. In addition, the company guarantees the speed of a ship built according to the theoretical drawing it has developed and equipped with the company's mechanisms. The material expression of the guarantee is determined by penalties that cannot exceed 13% of the contract value (according to the Italian-Soviet agreement of 6 in May of 1933) ”.


Apparently, the theoretical design of the 26 cruisers was made on the basis of the “Eugenio di Savoia”, but it’s not clear who made it, the Soviet designers or the Italian ones.

Under the contract with Ansaldo, the Italians sold us only the power plant and hull drawings, but it is well known that this did not exhaust the Soviet-Italian cooperation in the creation of 26 cruisers: Italian specialists helped us with the calculation of the weight characteristics of the cruiser, in addition, the towers The main caliber was also designed with Italian help. It is possible that we turned to Mussolini's shipbuilding companies and other technical issues. It can be assumed that a brief history of the design of Soviet cruisers looked like this: after the appearance of the first HTA (6 000 t, 4 * 180-mm guns), the USSR was able to get acquainted with the designs of the newest Italian cruisers, during which decisions were made to purchase the Montecucoli power plant "And installation on the Soviet ship of the third tower of the main caliber. Accordingly, domestic designers created a draft design of a cruiser with a displacement of 6 500 t and carrying 6 * 180-mm guns, and in parallel with this, negotiations were underway to purchase the undercarriage and technical assistance of the Italians. In May, 1934 signed an agreement with Ansaldo, and the Soviet side declares its desire to build a cruiser in 7 000 t (here apparently insured against the case of a further increase in displacement). The Italians considered that the theoretical design “Eugenio di Savoia” was best suited as the basis for the design of the new Soviet ship, and created the corresponding design - for the 7 000 t cruiser with three two-gun 180-mm turrets, and by the end of 1934 they "Run in" it in the European experimental pools. While the Italians were engaged in a theoretical drawing, the Soviet designers created the project (yet the internal structure of the compartments of the Soviet cruisers, not counting the boiler rooms and engine rooms, is very different from the Italian, if only because of different booking systems). Of course, in designing our design offices had the opportunity to consult with the Italians, but to what extent it is unclear. As a result, by the end of 1934, Italian theoretical drawings and Soviet studies were supposed to “merge” into a quality cruiser project in 7 000 T. Accident was prevented - just at the end of 1934 in the USSR, A.A. Florensky about replacing two-gun towers with three-gun towers, which required redesigning the towers, revising the hull structure and, of course, reworking the theoretical drawing created by the Italians, but the Soviet design bureau did this work almost independently. Why not ask the Italians? Most likely because they had already fulfilled their obligations and designed the cruiser at the request of the customer, and if the customer suddenly and at the final stage decided to revise the conditions, then the Italians could not be held responsible. At the same time, the level of Soviet design thought has already allowed solving such issues on its own.

It should be noted that, having made such a decision, the TsKBS-1 specialists fairly risked - the Italians vouched for achieving the contract speed only if the cruiser was built with an Italian chassis and according to the Italian theoretical design. Accordingly, having made changes to the latter, the specialists of TsKBS-1 took responsibility for themselves; now, in the event of a failure to reach the contract speed, it was they who were responsible, not the Italians. But for such a failure it was possible to please in the "enemies of the people."

And yet the cruiser type "Kirov" should be considered mainly Soviet development. Of course, the USSR took full advantage of the knowledge and shipbuilding experience of Italy, and this was absolutely correct. In the conditions of revolution, civil war and the extremely difficult economic situation of the country of the end of 20, the beginning of 30, the domestic shipbuilding industry could not develop, in fact it stagnated. And the leading naval powers at that time went into a technological breakthrough: the boilers and turbines of the 30s fundamentally surpassed everything that was created before the First World War, there were very sophisticated tower installations of medium-caliber artillery, stronger armor, etc. Keeping up with all this at the same time would be extremely difficult (although it is possible, for example, if we recall the power of the Leningrad leaders created in the USSR), so using someone else's experience was more than justified. At the same time, a very specific type of cruiser was created in the USSR, which corresponds to the Soviet naval doctrine and is completely dissimilar to the cruisers of other powers. One can argue for a long time about how true the prerequisites laid down in the HTA of the first Soviet cruiser were, but the specificity of the characteristics of the 26 and 26-bis project ships, which caused so much controversy about their "class" affiliation, cannot be denied.


The cruiser "Kirov" during the Second World War, the exact date of the photo is unknown


So what kind of cruisers did the USSR have? Light or heavy? Let's try to understand the existing classifications in 30, defined by international maritime treaties.

In 1922, the five largest sea powers of the world (England, USA, Japan, France, Italy) signed the Washington Maritime Agreement, according to which the standard displacement of cruisers was limited to 10 000 "long" (or 10 160 metric) tons, and the caliber of the guns should not exceed 203 mm:

Article 11 of the Agreement stated: “Contracting parties may not acquire or build warships of other classes, except large ships and aircraft carriers, with a standard displacement exceeding 10 000 t, within their jurisdiction.”

Article 12 established: "Contracting ships, laid down in the future, except for large ships, should not carry tools of a caliber larger than 8 inches (203 mm)."

There were no other limitations or definitions for cruisers in this document. In essence, the Washington Agreement attempted to limit the construction of battleships and aircraft carriers, and both of the above articles are aimed at preventing member countries from building battleships under the guise of cruisers. But the Washington Agreement did not regulate the classes of cruisers in any way - do you want to consider the 203-mm ten thousand meters small or light cruisers? Your inalienable right. The agreement simply stated that a ship over 10 thousand tons or with artillery more than 203 mm would be considered a battleship, that's all. Interestingly, the first Italian “Washington” cruisers “Trento” and “Trieste” were considered light cruisers when laying in the 1925 g (although they were later reclassified into heavy ones). So from the point of view of the Washington Agreement, the Kirov-class can be safely attributed to light cruisers.

The London Maritime Treaty of 1930 is different. In the 15 article of the 3 section, two subclasses of cruisers were established, the belonging being determined by the caliber of the guns: the first subclass included ships with artillery over 155 mm and the second, respectively, with tools 155 mm or lower. Given the fact that the London Treaty did not cancel the Washington Agreement (according to the 23 article, it became null and void 31 December 1936) both cruiser subclasses could not be larger than 10 thousand tons of standard displacement.

Interestingly, France and Italy refused to sign the 3 section of the Treaty of London, which specified cruisers. Of course, the point was not at all in the classification, but in the fact that France and Italy sought to avoid restrictions on the tonnage of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, which were established by article 16 of the third section. Be that as it may, the full text of the treaty was signed only by three maritime powers - the USA, Great Britain and Japan. However, subsequently (Rome Pact 1931), France and Italy nevertheless agreed to recognize the third section of the London Maritime Treaty 1930, but then in 1934, Japan completely abandoned its implementation.

Despite these "throwing", it is likely that we can still assume that the London Maritime Treaty of 1930 gave the world classification of cruisers, but it should be borne in mind that the 3 section of this treaty (along with many others) as well as the Washington Agreement acted only until December 31 1936. So starting from 1 in January 1937, no document regulated the characteristics of cruisers, unless the countries gather again at an international conference and come up with something, but if they gather, and what they decide no one could have foreseen.

As is known, the USSR did not sign either the Washington Agreement or the 1930 Treaty of London of the year and was not obliged to fulfill their conditions, and the commissioning of the 26 Soviet cruisers was to be carried out (and actually implemented) only after these treaties became invalid.

The last prewar maritime agreement regulating the classes of surface ships (London Maritime Treaty 1936 of the year) cannot be considered international, since only three of the five major maritime powers were signed: the United States, Britain and France. But, although the USSR did not participate in the conference, he recognized its position, although later. This happened at the time of the conclusion of the Anglo-Soviet Maritime Agreement 1937, in which the Soviet Union undertook to adhere to the classifications of the London Maritime Treaty 1936. What were these classifications?

The very concept of "cruiser" did not exist in it. The 2 class of large artillery warships was distinguished - large surface ships of war (Capital ships and Light surface vessels). The first are the battleships, which in turn were divided into 2 categories:

1) the ship was considered a linkor of the 1 category if it had a standard displacement of more than 10 thousand "long" tons, regardless of what caliber the artillery was installed on it. Also, ships with a displacement from 1 to 8 thousand "long" tons belonged to the 10 category, if their artillery caliber exceeded 203 mm;
2) battleships of the 2 category were related to ships that had a standard displacement of less than 8 thousand "long" tons, but having more than 203-mm artillery.

What kind of battleship is less than 8 KT? Probably, in this way, they tried to isolate coastal defense battleships into a separate subclass.

Light surface ships had a standard displacement of no more than 10 thousand "long" tons and were divided into 3 categories:

1) ships whose guns were larger than 155 mm;
2) ships whose guns were equal to or less than 155 mm, and whose standard displacement exceeded 3 thousand "long" tons;
3) ships whose guns were equal to or less than 155 mm and whose standard displacement did not exceed 3 thousand "long" tons.

In a number of sources it is indicated that the second London gave a different definition to light cruisers and that those were considered those whose caliber of artillery did not exceed 155 mm, and the standard displacement - 8 thousand "long" tons. But judging by the text of the contract, this is a mistake. The fact is that the London Treaty of 1936 of the year forbade the construction of the “Light Surface Ships” of the first category (i.e., with tools over 155 mm) and allowed to build the 2 category, but only on condition that the standard displacement of such ships would not be exceed 8 thousand "long" tons. Those. if some power had cruisers with a displacement from 8 to 10 thousand tons with 155-mm artillery at the time of signing the contract, it was recognized as light (second category), but until the expiration of the contract it was forbidden to build light cruisers over 8 thousand displacement.

And what about our "Kirovs"? Obviously, from the point of view of the letter of the agreement, the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis projects are heavy cruisers (the first category of Light Surface Ships). Nevertheless, the small standard displacement (for cruisers of the 26 project - 7880 metric tons) was within the limits allowed for construction. Therefore, in the process of agreeing the Anglo-Soviet Maritime Agreement, the USSR notified England that the new Soviet cruisers are light and have a displacement of less than 8 thousand "long" tons, but at the same time carry the 180-mm gun.

In essence, for our cruisers came the “moment of truth”: they really differed from everything that the leading maritime powers built, and their position in the cruising “table of ranks” remained unclear. Now, however, it was necessary to decide whether they were light or heavy (more precisely, whether they belong to the first or second category of “light warships” of the London Treaty of 1936), and the question was extremely important. The fact is that if the 26 project cruisers were recognized as heavy, their construction, in accordance with the 1936 Treaty of London, should have been banned. It is clear that the USSR would not disassemble the four cruisers under construction, but it was possible to prohibit the laying of such ships in the future or demand the replacement of 180-mm guns with 152-mm. References to the fact that the USSR did not have 152-mm artillery at that time should not be taken into account, since the very same England could provide at least some drawings, even ready-made cannons and turrets at the most reasonable price.

In order to fully understand what happened in the future, you need to consider the following. At that time, the UK economy was far from booming, and the new naval arms race was ruinous for it. That is why the British were so eager to conclude international treaties limiting the quantity and quality of warships of all classes. Only in this way could England remain the leading maritime power (accepting parity only with the United States).

However, the efforts of England disappeared in vain: Italy and Japan did not want to sign a new treaty, and thus the British, French and Americans found themselves in a position where the restrictions they had invented applied only to them, but not to their likely opponents. This put England, the United States and France at a disadvantage, but they still did it, and there was also hope that Japan and Italy would change their mind and join the second Treaty of London.

At the same time, the Anglo-Soviet treaty 1937 was only concluded between England and the USSR. And if it turned out that this agreement would in some way contradict the London Maritime Treaty of 1936, then the United States and France would receive the full right to immediately terminate the unprofitable agreement for them. Moreover, Italy and Japan could effectively use such a violation, declaring that England was persuading the leading maritime countries for the same conditions, but then, behind them, concludes treaties on completely different ones and that from now on England, as the initiator of international agreements, there is no trust and no can. Worse, the same could have been done by Germany, which quite recently (in 1935) entered into a maritime agreement with England, which the leadership of the latter tried to present to its people as a great political victory.

In other words, if England, when signing a naval treaty with the USSR, would in some way violate the London Treaty of 1936, all political efforts in the field of limiting naval armaments would have been dust.

England agreed to consider cruisers of the type "Kirov" permitted for construction. Thus, the British de jure recognized that despite the 180-mm caliber, the Soviet ships of the project 26 and 26-bis should still be considered light cruisers. At the same time, the British introduced only one, quite reasonable, condition: they insisted on limiting the number of such ships to quotas of heavy cruisers. The USSR received the right to build seven 180-mm ships - i.e. as much as there were 203-mm cruisers from France, to which the fleet was equated with the fleet of the USSR under the Anglo-Soviet agreement. It was logical, because if the number of Kirov-type cruisers allowed to be built was not limited, it turned out that the USSR received the right to build more powerful light cruisers than England, France and the USA.

Interestingly, neither the United States, nor France, and no one in the world tried to protest such a decision and did not consider the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis project a violation of existing treaties. Thus, the international community agreed with the English interpretation and de facto recognized cruisers like the Kirov as light.

The question arises. If Soviet naval science and the international community have recognized the cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis projects are light, then what is the basis of modern historians to convert them into heavy subclasses? Still the same letter of the London Treaty on 155-mm caliber? And the excess of this parameter per inch automatically makes the "Kirovs" heavy cruisers? Well, then let's consider the question of classifying Soviet cruisers from a different point of view.

It is well known that the Washington restrictions of cruisers - 10 thousand tons and 203-mm caliber - did not arise as a result of the evolution of this class of ships, but in general by chance - at the time of the signing of the Washington agreements, England had the latest cruisers Hawkins in the fleet 9,8 thousand tons with seven 190-mm guns in deck installations, and it was clear that Britain would not send the newly built ships for scrapping.



At that time they were the largest modern cruisers and the Washington restrictions are oriented precisely on these ships. But the Hawkins, in spite of all its novelty, was the shipbuilding yesterday. On the approach were completely new types of ships, with turret artillery of the main caliber, which weighed a lot more deck installations. At the same time, the Hawkins were built as a fighter for light cruisers, and as such they carried extremely moderate protection, capable of covering the ship except from 152-mm projectiles of light cruisers. But to build the "Washington" ten-thousandths all rushed, respectively, the question of meeting cruisers in battle seriously arose, which required adequate protection from 203-mm projectiles.

Very quickly, shipbuilders around the world were convinced that the creation of a harmonious ship with 203-mm guns in the 10 160 displacement metric tons is impossible - fast-moving, but almost unprotected ships were obtained. Then almost all the fleets of the world went to the scam - they strengthened the performance characteristics of their ships, violating the Washington and London agreements on a displacement of one or two thousand tons, or even more. Italian "Zara"? Standard displacement - 11 870 tons. "Bolzano"? 11 065 tons. American "Wichita"? 10 589 tons. Japanese "Nati"? 11 156 tons. "Takao"? 11 350 tons. "Hipper"? Generally 14 250 tons!

None of the above (and many others not mentioned in this list) ships, according to the current international classification is not a cruiser. All of them, having a standard displacement of more than 10 000 "long" (10 160 metric) tons, are ... battleships. Therefore, focusing on the letter of the contract, of course, one can recognize the Soviet cruisers of the 26 and 26-bis projects as heavy. But in this case it is completely senseless to compare ships of completely different classes, which, from the point of view of the London Maritime Treaty 1936, are the heavy cruiser Kirov and, for example, the battleship Zara or Admiral Hipper.

The question is not in chicory, but in the fact that situations with violation of international treaties are absolutely identical. In the Soviet Union, a light cruiser was designed, but it was considered that the 180-mm caliber responded better to its tasks and thus exceeded the limits for light cruisers according to international classification. In Italy, designed the heavy cruiser "Zara" and, to make it more balanced, increased the displacement than exceeded the limits for heavy cruisers according to the same international classification. Why do we have to transfer the cruiser "Kirov" to the next subclass of cruisers, but at the same time leave the "Zara" in its class?

To be continued ...
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 2 August 2016 06: 56
    +4
    In my opinion, it was correctly addressed to Italians. The second generation after the PMV light cruisers, has already been spared the stigma of cardboard. The similarity is certain, for example, PTZ. In general, the Italians are characterized by a heavier power plant, however, armoring towers, barbets, a longitudinal bulkhead says where the weight went.
    They like to reproach the Italians for placing guns in a single cradle, they say the spread of shells caused frantic. Firstly, the problem was in the quality of the projectile charges and in the quality of the manufacture of shells, and secondly, the personnel’s atillery training was very lame, and I saw statistics somewhere that the influence was really cheap. Often shot not at the same time, but in a sequential salvo.

    In general, it’s not the ships to blame for the failure of the Italians, but the people. In fact, their light cruisers were the strongest in their class on the theater, they actually had such weak anti-aircraft weapons. The radar would not hurt, by the way which was on the battleships. What caused the surprise of the British, but immediately reassured, as NO ONE of the officers did not know how to use it. And after that they still wonder at the defeat of the Italians. wassat
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 2 August 2016 07: 23
      +3
      Quote: kugelblitz
      And after that they still wonder at the defeat of the Italians.

      “The Italians have always been better at building ships than fighting them,” the Naglo-Saxons are not so wrong. smile
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 09: 20
        0
        Better to build than the British ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 09: 56
          +2
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Better to build than the British ...

          The British, by the way, almost never built well - the vast majority of their ships - so, strong middle peasants
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 08: 44
      +4
      Quote: kugelblitz
      In my opinion, it was correctly addressed to Italians.

      In general, yes. They tried to appeal to many, but the United States did not want to help (they have some panic fear that American technology will flow to Japan through the USSR), the French have broken an unbearable price ... But the Italians showed the greatest desire to cooperate with us, that their ships were pretty good
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The second generation after the PMV light cruisers, has already been spared the stigma of cardboard.

      And not only lungs, the same Zaras at the time of their appearance are almost the best TCRs in their class. And as for me it’s the best.
      Quote: kugelblitz
      They like to reproach the Italians for placing guns in a single cradle, they say the spread of shells caused frantic. Firstly, the problem was in the quality of the projectile charges and the quality of the manufacture of shells

      We get to them - I hope in the next article :)
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 09: 24
        0
        The USA itself, among others, was arming Japan first against Russia, then against the USSR ... Why would they need technology to flow into the USSR? They themselves steal them all over the world, as well as buy ready-made skilled cards with their best practices.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 09: 57
          +3
          Quote: Simpsonian
          The USA itself, among others, armed Japan first against Russia, then against the USSR ...

          Against Russia - yes, against the USSR - no, because at that time Japan posed a much greater threat to the US than the USSR, which in the 30’s did not pose any threat to the United States
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 3 August 2016 06: 27
            0
            Against the USSR, too, overseas Japan, completely dependent on American-Dutch oil, inferior to the United States in industrial potential by 12 times posed no threat to the United States. They needed it to put pressure on Russia and China.
            In Japan, Americans and British assisted during and after Khalkhin Gol.
            It’s not even a question that in one place from Russia to Alaska you can swim without a boat, but racial. Vryatli Masonic USA calm down while Russia is. To do this, they, along with the British, raised Hitler and that.
            1. Artem Popov
              Artem Popov 1 March 2018 23: 26
              0
              What nonsense are you talking about? The United States is a free country, companies supply products where there is demand. When Japan began to try its claws in China, the United States began to put pressure on JAPAN and impose sanctions (just like with Russia now). Actually, Japan’s military operations were due, inter alia, due to sanctions - the United States banned the export of oil to Japan
        2. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 2 August 2016 16: 14
          +3
          Quote: Simpsonian
          The USA itself, among others, was arming Japan first against Russia, then against the USSR ... Why would they need technology to flow into the USSR? They themselves steal them all over the world, as well as buy ready-made skilled cards with their best practices.


          You perceive the United States as a mono country with a state economy.
          In fact, each corporation sought to earn and sell technology and equipment (with the exception of some military).
          For example, the Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant — martens and US technologies, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant — caterpillar technologies, and the plant was designed and built by the same American company as the caterpillar plant designed and built.

          Italian companies apparently did not depend on their government, therefore they made good money on the transfer of technology and projects.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 3 August 2016 06: 36
            0
            That's about it. During WWII from the USA and American TNCs, much of what was delivered to the Reich not supplied in the USSR, for some reason. For example, anti-corrosion varnish for aluminum, because of which the USSR did not have light and durable all-metal fighters.
            This is not to mention the supply of Standard Oil motor oil, etc., on which the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were completely dependent upon the collapse of the blitzkrieg.
            1. Artem Popov
              Artem Popov 1 March 2018 23: 24
              0
              Dear, two questions for you to check:
              1. Who made the list of Lend-Lease goods (and why didn’t order varnish)
              2. how such a null transporter cargo from the United States turned out to be in Germany with a complete blockade and a thorough inspection of the ships.

              Well, to call the second world "wow" is a diagnosis.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 August 2016 09: 58
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            You perceive the United States as a mono country with a state economy.
            In fact, each corporation sought to earn and sell technology and equipment (with the exception of some military).

            Not everything is so simple. ©
            By the end of the 30s, thanks to the efforts of the FDR, the influence of the state on private business was quite large. The same "moral embargo", which was formally voluntary, in fact became mandatory - for those who did not comply could fly past the state order and state support. On the other hand, the state supported its companies with all its might. The most famous case is the program for the renovation of the American private merchant fleet by building 500 high-speed vehicles at private shipyards at public expense in 10 years, with their subsequent leasing to private companies (provided that the crew is 90% US citizens). At the same time, shipbuilders and shipowners, choosing American, there were subsidies to compensate for the additional costs of construction and operation. Further, this program developed and expanded - and the result was "Liberty" and "Victory".
        3. Artem Popov
          Artem Popov 1 March 2018 23: 21
          0
          uh what?
          Here Russia built ships in the USA before the RNP, but Japan did not. In Germany, France, it was a ship or two, but the rest was in England.
          And here the United States generally lol.
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 8 July 2020 17: 10
            0
            Quote: Artem Popov
            Here Russia built ships in the USA before the RNP, but Japan did not.

            Kasagi in Philadelphia and Chitose in San Francisco.
  2. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 2 August 2016 07: 34
    +1
    Quote: kugelblitz

    They like to reproach the Italians for placing guns in a single cradle, they say the spread of shells caused frantic. Firstly ...

    On the first 13 American SRTs (2 Pensacola type, 6 Northampton type, 2 Portland type, 3 New Orleans type), 203mm turret guns were installed in single cradles. But starting with the 14th cruiser (Tuscaloosa ") switched to normal ones - apparently something did not suit them in a single cradle.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 08: 40
      +1
      Quote: BORMAN82
      apparently something in a single cradle did not suit them

      Of course. We’ll consider the installation of guns in one cradle later, I expect to get to them in the next article
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 August 2016 11: 11
      +1
      Quote: BORMAN82
      On the first 13 American SRTs (2 Pensacola type, 6 Northampton type, 2 Portland type, 3 New Orleans type), 203mm turret guns were installed in single cradles.

      You can also recall the built BSHGK LKs of the "Nevada" and "Pennsylvania" types. Not Three-gun Turrets, but Triple Turrets - 3 guns in one cradle.
      By the way, after installing delay coils in these towers at the beginning of the 30s (delay of the central gun firing by 0,06 seconds), the dispersion was reduced by about half.
  3. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 2 August 2016 08: 17
    0
    Bravo, fellow countryman "Andrey from Chelyabinsk"! Capaciously, precisely and simply in a genius way: as my high-ranking friends in our region say, "give the very essence", without the rush of "water" ?! But I would like to ask you as a competent expert about the classification of the cruiser "Soviet Union" - is it a heavy cruiser, a "pocket" battleship or is it a full-fledged battleship? And more about the role of D.F. Ustinov as the chief designer of the 203 mm ship gun?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 08: 49
      +1
      Quote: KudrevKN
      Bravo, fellow countryman "Andrey from Chelyabinsk"!

      Thank you!
      Quote: KudrevKN
      But I would like to ask you as a competent expert about the classification of the cruiser "Soviet Union" - is it a heavy cruiser, a "pocket" battleship or is it a full-fledged battleship?

      Generally speaking - a battleship, but you probably meant the heavy cruisers "Kronstadt"? From the point of view of the international classification, it is definitely a battleship, while, unlike the Kirovs, the Kronstadts had analogues - these are Scharnhorst and Dunkirk, and they were considered battleships. On the other hand, the Americans nevertheless called their "Alaska" "big cruisers". I would, frankly, separate them all into a separate class of battle cruisers
      Quote: KudrevKN
      And also about the role of D.F. Ustinov as the chief designer of the 203 mm ship gun

      Here, I'm afraid incompetent
      1. Kudrevkn
        Kudrevkn 2 August 2016 08: 54
        0
        Many thanks and creative success to you! I would be glad to read your article about "Kronstadt" and about the heavy cruiser pr.41 bis "Stalingrad", which ended his days as a "test subject" at the Novaya Zemlya test site!
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 2 August 2016 09: 50
          +1
          Quote: KudrevKN
          I would be glad to read your article about "Kronstadt" and about the heavy cruiser pr.41 bis "Stalingrad", which ended his days as a "test subject" at the Novaya Zemlya test site!

          Konstantin. I am wildly sorry, but pr. 41 is the destroyer "Fearless", and "Stalingrad" is pr. 82 and he ended his life in Inkerman (Sevastopol) hi
          1. Kudrevkn
            Kudrevkn 2 August 2016 20: 56
            0
            At the school (VVMIOLU, korfak), knowledgeable people - professors told us (they gave lectures and, as a rule, secret ones) that EM. "Undaunted" was just ... ave. 30 bis? On the armor of the "Stalingrad" capsule they actually carried out the command: "An atomic explosion on the quarterdeck! Fall with your feet to the explosion (on the tank) ?!" We even watched the film MO "00" on this fact at a class on weapons of mass destruction (weapons of mass destruction), so what "rusted" in Inkerman (and phonilo?), I don't know? With great respect, but I remain unconvinced - I was taught so! Similar "experiments" were carried out by our atomic scientists on the trophy light AB "Graf Zeppelin"!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 August 2016 21: 00
              0
              Quote: KudrevKN
              EM. "Undaunted" was just ... pr. 30 bis

              And yet 41 is a well-known and easily verified fact.
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 3 August 2016 07: 00
              +3
              There were interesting people in your school !!! In the navy, unlike the ground forces, there is such a tradition to call combat vehicles (ships) by proper names. Konstantin, what do you think, if crews were formed for the new heavy cruisers, did the fleet know about these ships? "Stalingrad" was laid in Nikolaev, is it advisable to drag the unfinished citadel around Europe to Novaya Zemlya? Moreover, the entire Black Sea Fleet was aware of the fact that this citadel was an unsinkable target for testing cruise missiles, new torpedoes and practicing the bombing of the KCHF Air Force. The second building "Moscow" was built at the Baltic plant in Leningrad, but comrade Khrushchev handed it over for scrap. The third building (serial number 0-401) was laid down at plant number 402 (Molotovsk-Severodvinsk). after Stalin's death it was also dismantled for metal. As far as I know, large ships did not participate in nuclear weapons tests, the only rumors were about the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov"
              The Undaunted destroyer was the only one in the 41 project and it was simply impossible to confuse it with the 30 encore!
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 3 August 2016 07: 02
                +2
                Destroyer "Fearless" pr.41
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 3 August 2016 07: 04
                  +2
                  And this is the destroyer "Stepenny" pr. 30 bis.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 3 August 2016 07: 06
                    +2
                    But the citadel of the TKR "Stalingrad" pr. 82 stranded near the Karantinnaya Bay Sevastopol in May 1955.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 2 August 2016 10: 33
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        unlike the Kirovs, the Kronstadts had analogues - these are Scharnhorst and Dunkirk, and they were considered battleships.

        When creating heavy cruisers "Kronstadt" with a displacement of 38 tons, the project of American heavy cruisers "Alaska" with a displacement of 360 tons was considered as competitors. At the same time, in the 32-000s, due to the Washington Agreement and attempts to bypass it in various ways in the classes of ships, a certain confusion arose and it would be wrong to judge whether it belonged to a particular type of ship by displacement.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 11: 24
          +1
          Quote: Verdun
          When creating the heavy cruisers "Kronstadt" with a displacement of 38 tons, the project of the American heavy cruisers "Alaska" with a displacement of 360 tons was considered as competitors.

          I'm sorry, but it isn't. In essence, the Kronstadts grew out of a project of heavy cruisers with 254-mm artillery, which were supposed to become the ultimatum killers of Washingtonians. But then EMNIP Molotov proposed to put 305-mm guns so that the ship could withstand the Scharnhorst - and it started ...
          And the "Alaska" was laid down much later, in November 1941, at the time of the development of Project 69, ours hardly knew anything about it. As far as I remember, the Americans were just starting to select a project when ours had already approved the performance characteristics of Kronstadt
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 2 August 2016 11: 46
          +3
          Quote: Verdun
          When creating the heavy cruisers "Kronstadt" with a displacement of 38 tons, the project of the American heavy cruisers "Alaska" with a displacement of 360 tons was considered as competitors.

          When the Alaska SRT was being designed, the Kronstadt SRT was already under construction. smile

          "Kronstadt" was originally a "KRT fighter", which, as a result of improvements, turned into another reincarnation of "small aircraft" or "type B aircraft", the design of which (in parallel with the "large" "type A" aircraft) our design bureaus were engaged in all 30s ...
          As early as September 1937, in the development of decisions of the KO of August 13/15, a commission chaired by the joint venture. Stavitsky worked out a draft TTZ for a heavy cruiser (CRT) with a main gun of 9 - 254 mm guns, armor protecting it from 203 mm shells and a speed of 34 knots. Joint venture At the same time, Stavitsky insisted on limiting the displacement of the ship (no more than 18000-19000 tons), "so that this ship does not move from the category of the most powerful cruisers to the category of the weakest battleships (as happened with battleship B)."
          Fears S.P. Stavitsky “brilliantly” came true. When considering the "sketch" of the CRT (D 69) at the meeting of the KO on May 14, 1938, V. Molotov proposed TsKB-17 to study the question of the possibility of replacing 9 - 254-mm guns with 6 - 305-mm guns, and already on June 29, by the decree of the KO for designing a draft design of the “big cruiser” 69 of his main guns were identified in 9 - 305-mm guns, the main side belt is 250 mm, and the displacement is 30000-31000 tons. The difference between the new ship (Project 69) and the “wrecking” LC B Project 25, in fact, consisted only of the speed of 31–32 knots instead of 35 knot
  4. Serg65
    Serg65 2 August 2016 08: 34
    +2
    Andrey, the amount of work done is impressive! Bravo! They convinced their words that the insolvency of B-1-P caused the emergence of LCR, etc. 68! good
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 2 August 2016 09: 28
      -1
      "Ansaldo" of the USSR deceived with the drawings, that's the whole trace ... there was nothing like 68pr in the west, as it suddenly became clear when they began to fire and fire torpedoes one at a time "for scrap".
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 09: 52
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      Andrey, the amount of work done is impressive!

      Thank you!
      Quote: Serg65
      They convinced their words that the insolvency of B-1-P caused the emergence of LCR, etc. 68!

      Nooo, what are you doing right away? :)))) The next article will be devoted to B-1-P. I hope you find something interesting there :)
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 2 August 2016 10: 09
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I hope you find something interesting there :)

        I also hope to look forward to winked
  5. Verdun
    Verdun 2 August 2016 10: 26
    +2
    Apparently, the theoretical design of the 26 cruisers was made on the basis of the “Eugenio di Savoia”, but it’s not clear who made it, the Soviet designers or the Italian ones.
    As a person involved in plazovy development myself, I can note that when comparing the theoretical drawings of "Raimondo Montecuccoli", "Eugenio di Savoia" and "Kirov" have serious differences and it is inappropriate to talk about their identity. "they say that it was at the stage of plaza development that time was significantly saved. Considering the size of such drawings and the complexity of their creation and adjustment, it can be assumed that the drawings were not altered or created anew, but were nevertheless acquired from the Italians, but that it was a separate Italian project, albeit similar to the built cruisers.
    It is somewhat strange that when describing the process of creating cruisers, the author does not mention their chief designer - Anatoly Iosafovich Maslov. Even if the components were Italian, our Russian engineers brought them together and, having created a cruiser, seriously different from the Italian Condottieri.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      It is somewhat strange that when describing the process of creating cruisers, the author does not mention their chief designer, Anatoly Iosafovich Maslov.

      Generally yes - it was worth it. Here is my flaw.
      Quote: Verdun
      As a person who was involved in plazovy development myself, I can note that when comparing the theoretical drawings of "Raimondo Montecuccoli", "Eugenio di Savoia" and "Kirov" have serious differences

      Thanks. Nevertheless, I conjecture in this matter and it is very nice to know the opinion of an experienced person! hi
  6. qwert
    qwert 2 August 2016 10: 58
    0
    Captions appeared under the pictures, this is good. No list of references is bad.
    Quote: Verdun
    It is strange that, when describing the process of creating cruisers, the author does not mention their chief designer - Anatoly Iosafovich Maslov. Even if the components were Italian, our Russian engineers brought them together and, having created a cruiser, seriously different from the Italian "Condottieri".

    Join.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 11: 26
      0
      Quote: qwert
      No list of references is bad.

      I already wrote that I put the list of references in the last article of the cycle hi
  7. Taoist
    Taoist 2 August 2016 11: 44
    +2
    In general, the classification of warships is conditional through and through, and does not carry anything useful in itself ... It is probably important not which class the ship will be assigned to (well, with the exception of purely legal casuistry), but its combat functionality. In this regard, pr 26 does not pull on a heavy cruiser in any way ... Again, it was tailored for a set of specific tasks clearly different from the tasks of a light cruiser ... well, the "Soviet pride" - so why not introduce your own class? ;-)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 12: 01
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      In general, the classification of warships through and through is conditional, and in itself does not carry anything useful ...

      Quite true. But there is a habit of thinking - to compare like with like. Those. those who transfer Kirov to the class of heavy cruisers automatically start comparing it with other heavy cruisers, which is not true. Because the TKR was a priori tasked with fighting their own kind, but no one asked Kirov to fight the TKR.
      Anyway, it was worth rolling up your sleeves and sorting out the international classifications :)))
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 2 August 2016 12: 04
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      well, the "Soviet have their own pride" - so why not introduce their own class? ;-)

      By the way, the Germans attributed our leaders of the Leningrad class to light cruisers. Apparently taking into account the fact that our 130 mm guns were seriously superior to the German 127 mm in range (25.7 km versus 17.7 km) and projectile weight (33.5 kg versus 28 kg).
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 August 2016 12: 30
        +2
        Quote: Verdun
        By the way, the Germans attributed our leaders of the Leningrad class to light cruisers. Apparently taking into account the fact that our 130 mm guns were seriously superior to the German 127 mm in range (25.7 km versus 17.7 km) and projectile weight (33.5 kg versus 28 kg).

        Taking into account that the Germans have EM 36A ("Narviki"), it is somehow hard to believe in such a classification of our "Leningrad".
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 2 August 2016 13: 16
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA

          Taking into account that the Germans have EM 36A ("Narviki"), it is somehow hard to believe in such a classification of our "Leningrad".
          Anyway, 15 cm Tbts KC / 36 fired at only 22 km. And the speed of destroyers like 1936A is 37 knots versus 43 among our leaders. The Japanese light cruisers Yubari, the Americans, too, did not really know which class they belonged to - either very light cruisers, or too big leaders ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 2 August 2016 15: 20
            +2
            Quote: Verdun
            Anyway, 15 cm Tbts KC / 36 fired at only 22 km. And the speed of destroyers like 1936A is 37 knots versus 43 among our leaders. The Japanese light cruisers Yubari, the Americans, too, did not really know which class they belonged to - either very light cruisers, or too big leaders ...

            You still recall the "Fantasks" (5x1-138, 45 knots) with the Mogadors (4x2-138, 43,5 knots). smile
            By the way, the French had an ideal class for these reEM-under-RC: counter-destroyers. All the leaders fit well into this class, as well as small light CDs / armored LDs ("yubari-like") and even American "Atlanteans".

            Classic 30s leaders are French
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 2 August 2016 15: 43
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Classic 30s leaders are French

              It is curious that the specialists of the USSR, France and Italy managed to solve the problem of destruction of screws from cavitation. Hence, such high - 39 and more knots - speeds. I know the Germans for sure. what not - on their destroyers the speed was limited exploitation, since the screws were rapidly destroyed. But how this situation was with England and the USA is not very clear. Judging by the speed of their destroyers and leaders, it’s not very healthy, although proud British write that the speed of their destroyers is a stable speed on a wave, taking into account possible overload.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        2 August 2016 12: 34
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        Incidentally, our leaders of the "Leningrad" class were referred to by the Germans as light cruisers.

        Perverts! laughing
        1. ICT
          ICT 2 August 2016 20: 02
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Perverts!


          I read somewhere about the American sailing fleet, they there, like frigates, sheathed better than battleships and there their opponent is, well, like a frigate to a freg, but there are no holes from the nuclei there,
          well, so the meaning from memory
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 2 August 2016 13: 52
    +3
    Quote: Verdun
    Quote: Taoist
    well, the "Soviet have their own pride" - so why not introduce their own class? ;-)

    By the way, the Germans attributed our leaders of the Leningrad class to light cruisers. Apparently taking into account the fact that our 130 mm guns were seriously superior to the German 127 mm in range (25.7 km versus 17.7 km) and projectile weight (33.5 kg versus 28 kg).

    All these sky-high km. firing range "up to one place" - shooting at areas on land, since "Leningrad" consistently hit the opponent in the form of a maneuvering target the size of a destroyer from a distance of even 100 kab. (18,5 km.). However, this also applies to all other destroyers - the dispersion of relatively light shells and the unstable gun platform and the then FCS installed on destroyers does not allow effective fire at such distances.
  10. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 2 August 2016 15: 48
    +3
    Apparently, the theoretical design of the 26 cruisers was made on the basis of the “Eugenio di Savoia”, but it’s not clear who made it, the Soviet designers or the Italian ones.


    Interest Ask.
    For example, under a contract with Krupp, German engineers were engaged in design (in the USSR), and our artillery designers trained with the Germans, sort of like "catching up" - the most talented (Grabin Vasily Gavrilovich), quickly outgrew their German colleagues and created their own design bureaus.
    The ship is a much more complex platform - it is not possible to create from scratch without having design experience, and the Italian school of design made it possible to start from scratch, with a completely modern cruiser project.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 15: 58
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The ship is a much more complex platform - to create from scratch, having no design experience, is not possible

      It's actually difficult to say. How is that? Leaders like "Leningrad" were created by us on our own, and it turned out not so bad. Nevertheless, there were still problems with them - simply because starting from scratch, but having good personnel, in the end you can get an aggregate of the necessary performance characteristics. But the lack of operating experience will not allow us to foresee many problems, simply because "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines." And the USSR, having a shortage of time, naturally did not want to follow the path of trial and error, stuffing the necessary bumps on its own, but to use someone else's experience.
  11. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 2 August 2016 15: 54
    +2
    Nevertheless, cruisers of the Kirov type should be considered mainly Soviet-made.

    Wait a minute - a strange conclusion, designing under the guidance of Italian experts, an Italian powerplant, mechanisms, towers, testing in experimental pools abroad, all the technological equipment for production - and you call it mainly Soviet design?

    The project still looks 90% like Italian ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 16: 18
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      design led by Italian specialists

      No. There was a clear division of labor - the Italians make the EI and the theoretical drawing, but everything else is ours. At the same time, in "everything else" the Italians did not lead, but acted as experts, i.e. our designers had the opportunity to contact them on controversial issues. And then to say, it is not clear for what, i.e. We know for sure that the Italians advised us on the cruiser weights, but why else?
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      mechanisms, towers, tests in experimental pools abroad, all technological equipment for production

      Not at all. The mechanisms are only related to EH, although it cannot be excluded that they bought something else. Towers - there assistance in development, i.e. most likely they just showed the drawings of their own towers, perhaps they were allowed to seek advice during the design. And then they subscribed to a two-gun turret, and ours eventually made a three-gun turret. About "all the technological equipment" - no, of course, they did not rebuild our factories at all and they did not work entirely on Italian equipment.
      Let the "kitchen" analogy. You are an interior designer. You are ordered a kitchen project with an Italian kitchen set (purchased) and mainly from Italian building materials. You have not worked with their materials before, so you have the opportunity to consult with the Italian company - the supplier of the materials for their correct use. Based on all this, you make a design project. Whose development is it - yours, or Italian? hi
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 2 August 2016 16: 41
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Based on all this, you are doing a design project. Whose development is it, yours, or Italian?

        An interesting point. As for the destroyers - not in the know, but starting with cruisers on the Italian ships, tanks with wine were installed and "wine pipes" were bred in the premises. The Germans, respectively, had "beer pipes" and beer tanks. You open the cock in the cockpit, and ... There was no such equipment on our ships. smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 19: 18
          +3
          Quote: Verdun
          On our ships, such equipment was absent.

          M-dya :)))) Apparently they decided that the alcohol pipe would be too cool :)))
      2. Artem Popov
        Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 02
        0
        with one BIG amendment: you never designed anything more complicated than a chair. But you know how to saw and hammer with a hammer, yes.
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 2 August 2016 16: 27
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The project still looks 90% like Italian ...

      The theoretical drawing and testing of the models in the experimental pool are of course important. However, other points are no less important. For example, the development of the power set, which was designed for the cruisers "Kirov" by Soviet specialists under the guidance of chief designer A.I. Maslov, was carried out according to a unique combined scheme and had no analogues at that time. The planning of the interior, the placement of weapons and mechanisms, the careful placement of cargo and the location of the booking are also very important. And what about foreign components ... Now nobody is surprised if a French-built ship is equipped with German MTU diesel engines, Italian Oto Melara artillery systems, and Chinese-made electronics? Everyone tries to choose the best.
  12. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 18: 22
    +1
    Gentlemen! You are all smart, and I confess I am not smart. So tell me what you have sunk all these light-heavy cruisers, leaders and other battleships from our side since 1920. Just wondering, they sunk the thread together ... Especially about the "Kirov" please.
    PS Please do not worry, that it was a coastal battery - boring.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 2 August 2016 18: 41
      0
      Quote: nikcris
      Therefore, tell me that all these light-heavy cruisers, leaders, and other battleships from our side have sunk since 1920. It’s just interesting that they sank a Th-thread ...

      Unfortunately, our fleet did not count victories in surface sea battles during the Second World War. The reason for this is not at all the technical backwardness of ships of certain classes, the same cruisers of the Kirov type, but the general weakness of the surface fleet, the construction program of which had only gained momentum by the beginning of the war. So the heavy cruisers and battleships remained on the stocks, their hands did not reach the aircraft carriers. Yes, and the Germans in the eastern direction did not use large naval forces, since their fleet was also not particularly impressive in composition and the main threat to it was British surface ships. But on the shoulders of our patrolmen and destroyers fell the task of protecting the convoys going to the USSR with military assistance. They coped with this task no worse than the Allied destroyers.
      Please do not bother, that he was a coastal battery - boring.
      If the presence of even a small fleet strains the enemy, forcing him to throw large forces at his destruction, then this fleet exists not in vain.
      1. Artem Popov
        Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 05
        0
        what other "weakness" of the fleet. Well, there would be 5 LCs and 12 cruisers in the Baltic, what's next? with the same success would retreat from Tallinn through minefields. On the Black Sea - similarly. Full dominance of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation yielded nothing.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 19: 06
      +3
      Quote: nikcris
      Lord! You are all smart, and I admit - not smart.

      Well, at least honestly.
      Quote: nikcris
      Therefore, tell me that all these light-heavy cruisers, leaders and other battleships from our side have sunk since 1920.

      I wonder what they could drown? Baltic cruisers were locked up in the Gulf of Finland, the coast of which the Red Army could not hold, and even based in besieged Leningrad. Who expected such a dirty trick before the war? The Black Sea did not have any opponents; Italian ships did not enter the World Cup. In the Pacific, by the time the USSR entered the war, the Japanese fleet did not show any activity.
      Quote: nikcris
      PS Please do not worry, that it was a coastal battery - boring.

      And if it's boring, why waste time on the topic of cruisers? There is a lot of fun on the Internet - all sorts of cartoons, "Masha and the Bear" there, or "Smeshariki".
      1. nikcris
        nikcris 2 August 2016 19: 26
        +1
        Well, finally, and a common answer. The Baltic Fleet is locked in the Baltic Sea, the "legendary" Black Sea periodically in the Black Sea. Rzhu))) Although the Baltic Fleet was not sunk at least, on its own initiative. And tag - yes. The Black Sea is more legendary - where the leader of "Tashkent" was cabotage performed with overload. No, well, but what - the Ministry of Emergency Situations carries holiday-makers in military transport aviation to their homes from resorts today ...
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 2 August 2016 20: 01
          +3
          Quote: nikcris
          And tag - yes. The Black Sea is more legendary - where the leader of "Tashkent" was cabotage performed with overload.

          I think that on such a "cabotage" you would definitely
          was not boring. You would not be bored at the "resorts" of Sevastopol. However, war is such a thing that bears little resemblance to an action movie, and thrill-seekers at the front do not live long. Boring pragmatists survive there. It is trite, but true.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 20: 53
          +1
          Quote: nikcris
          Baltic Fleet locked in the Baltic Sea

          Excuse me, do you understand the difference between the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea? :))
          Quote: nikcris
          the "legendary" Black Sea periodically in the Black Sea.

          Well, firstly, for the Black Sea Fleet "legendary" is written without quotation marks, it has earned this right with its history of WWI inclusively, and secondly, no one locked it in the Black Sea.
          Quote: nikcris
          And tag - yes. Black Sea is more legendary - there the leader of "Tashkent" performed cabotage with overload

          You should go there, for this "cabotage" :)))
          Quote: nikcris
          No, well, but what

          But nothing, they would immediately understand what is the difference between the flights of the Ministry of Emergencies and the "Tashkent".
          Generally speaking, for the most part, the fleet was used poorly for the most part, and there are a lot of complaints against its leadership. But what does this have to do with the design of the Soviet cruisers that are discussed here?
          1. Artem Popov
            Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 10
            0
            “Generally speaking, for the World Cup the fleet for the most part was used very badly” But what, was the BF used skillfully? Are you up to date with the organization of the sentinel system in the summer of 1941? They just WASN’T. Having an overwhelming advantage over the Finnish-German fleet, the Baltic Fleet simply gave it the initiative, without exercising any control over the water area, especially at night. And therefore it was already dangerous to control - it was not for nothing that the Finns worked at night,
        3. mmaxx
          mmaxx 6 August 2016 18: 48
          0
          Can be compared with English affairs in the Cretan operation. Then for them the war was the same as ours. No successes. Losses dohren. Caboted back and forth. And they died to no avail. No one said about them that suckers did not know how to use the fleet. By our standards, a fleet was laid near Crete.
          We had another war.
          1. Artem Popov
            Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 14
            0
            No, the Cretan operation, both phases is a difficult decision, yes, leading to losses, but the fleet MUST support the troops on the island, both without missing the convoys and evacuating them later. The fleet has fully completed its task, 100%. Not a single transport passed, only those were not evacuated, came to the wrong bays.
            And what tasks did the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet perform? self-rescue from surrounded bases? The stock of torpedoes from Sevastopol was taken out, and the garrison was thrown. There are many soldiers, but there is no place to take torpedoes, for this they can be demoted from admirals or even shot.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 2 August 2016 20: 12
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The Baltic cruisers were locked in the Gulf of Finland, the coast of which the Red Army could not hold, and even based in the besieged Leningrad.

        Leaving the base in Tallinn, which, incidentally, even the Germans did not expect, is a very controversial decision that limited the fleet tactically and, in fact, led to the blockade of Leningrad.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 22: 12
          +1
          Quote: Verdun
          Leaving the base in Tallinn, which, incidentally, even the Germans did not expect, is a very controversial decision that limited the fleet tactically and, in fact, led to the blockade of Leningrad.

          The question is complex, but strictly speaking - this whole epic happened solely because of the threat of the capture of Tallinn, and the prevention of such a threat is clearly not the fault of the fleet.
  13. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 19: 51
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The Black Sea didn’t have any opponents,

    How so? And where has gone, for example, "Red Caucasus"? Self-drowned? And what about the Black Sea Fleet submarines?
    In your opinion, I’ll go out of the outskirts with a shotgun-grenade launcher-flamethrower and in a bulletproof vest (figuratively), but I have no opponents, but the “non-opponents” will immediately lay me down with a slingshot?
    And what about the great battleship "Paris Commune", which defended almost the entire war in Poti? Who prevented her from being coastal artillery for the Crimea? I waved through the fields - and In Poti, for repairs. Se la vie of the Black Sea Fleet.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 20: 58
      +1
      Quote: nikcris
      How so? And where has gone, for example, "Red Caucasus"?

      And where did he go, you comedian, ours? :) Actually, he died in 1952, being a target for cruise missiles
      Quote: nikcris
      In your opinion, I’ll go out of the outskirts with a shotgun-grenade launcher-flamethrower and in a bulletproof vest (figuratively), but I have no opponents, but the “non-opponents” will immediately lay me down with a slingshot?

      German aviation drowned Chervona Ukraine. Did you suggest that the Black-Ormed Fleet sink it? wassat
      1. nikcris
        nikcris 2 August 2016 21: 28
        +1
        I also know about Chervona Krajina. No need to remind. I asked a question about the Red Caucasus, which fired no more than 400 shells of the main caliber during the entire war. I was engaged in cabotage a couple of times a year between Poti and Tuapse, and mostly hung out in Poti, near the Paris Commune. At the same time, he has a Guards rank ... 900 crew members were 90% engaged in what any "Liberty" for a hundred bucks performed much better.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2016 22: 04
          +1
          Quote: nikcris
          I asked a question about the Red Caucasus, which during the whole war fired no more than 400 shells of the main caliber.

          And what do you need from a ship with shot guns? His trunks were still not lined, and there was no particular need to change tools
          Quote: nikcris
          Engaged in cabotage a couple of times a year between Poti and Tuapse

          About how the troops landed from the Caucasus, do not know? :))) And why am I not surprised ...
          1. nikcris
            nikcris 2 August 2016 22: 09
            -3
            I know. Have you landed from a pleasure Volga motor ship (I’m not talking about the Volga-Don))) on a seaside beach without a berth? Do you realize the effectiveness of the landing of the cruiser?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 August 2016 22: 15
              +2
              Quote: nikcris
              I know

              No, not in the know :)
            2. Verdun
              Verdun 2 August 2016 23: 17
              +1
              Quote: nikcris
              I know. Have you landed from a pleasure Volga motor ship (I’m not talking about the Volga-Don))) on a seaside beach without a berth? Do you realize the effectiveness of the landing of the cruiser?
              I wonder what kind of Volga pleasure boats are sailing the seas? Really river trams of the "Moscow" series? belay My wife's aunt worked for a long time as the chief dispatcher of the Yalta seaport, and I didn’t see any "Volga pleasure boats" there. But something like "Alexander Green" or "Evpatoria" - please. With these, I even landed in a storm when half of the passengers fed the fish. But they don't walk along the Volga. And as for the inconvenience of landing from the "Red Caucasus" ... It's how to organize. The main thing here is skill. Approximately the same as the Allies flashed during the landing in Normandy, drowning 140 out of 42 landing floating Shermans. smile
              1. Artem Popov
                Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 20
                -1
                There were river-sea cargo-passenger ships, project 592, type Kyrgyzstan.
                I rode it in 1991 to Volgograd and vice versa. So, we were landed on the beach at the reed, it has a long ladder on the tank, larger than that of the river parahodik, the suspension system is different, but the functionality is the same. It is no different from landing from the river.
        2. mmaxx
          mmaxx 6 August 2016 18: 43
          +1
          At the age of 41, "Kr.Kavkaz" had completely shot down artillery and did not get anywhere. The same thing and the "Paris Commune" and therefore stood in Poti, because they did not care.
  14. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 21: 00
    -6
    Well, firstly, for the Black Sea Fleet "legendary" is written without quotation marks, it has earned this right with its history of WWI inclusively, and secondly, no one locked it in the Black Sea.

    In WWI Goeben, alone, the Black Sea Fleet spun as he wanted. Half of the fleet went out to capture him. As a result, in 1918 Goeben turned the "legendary" Sevastopol by his presence at the repair.

    PS I do not know of such a "legendary" fleet, in which two battleships exploded to smithereens "by themselves")))
    PS "Put the minus further," legendary ".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2016 22: 08
      +3
      Quote: nikcris
      In WWI Goeben, alone, the Black Sea Fleet spun as he wanted. Half of the fleet went out to capture him. As a result, in 1918 Goeben turned the "legendary" Sevastopol by his presence at the repair.

      Yeah. The Black Sea Fleet cut off Turkish sea communications, gouged Zonguldak, deprived the capital of coal supplies, forced the entire supply of the Turkish army to dry land, supported the coastal flank of the army (Rostislav simply mocked the Turks there, had just not crawled out to land), conducted (the only fleet in the world for the whole PMV) successful large landings. And Goeben ... what did he do? :))))
      Quote: nikcris
      PS I do not know of such a "legendary" fleet, in which two battleships exploded to smithereens "by themselves")))

      (stocking popcorn) Announce the whole list, please :))) What kind of two battleships exploded there?
      Quote: nikcris
      PS "Put the minus further," legendary ".

      Do not worry, it will not rust behind us :)
  15. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 2 August 2016 21: 07
    +1
    And yet, Andrey, I remember well the blown up battleship Sovetsky Soyuz in the docks of Nikolaev - there were 406 mm main guns! 3 to 3! It should be a monster - a mastodon, but they didn't manage to finish it - they had to blow it up right at the docks - the Germans entered the city of Nikolaev! Look, for sure there is infa and a photo of this event, which is in many ways tragic for our country? Best regards, Konstantin Nikolaevich.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 2 August 2016 21: 34
      +3
      Quote: KudrevKN
      And yet, Andrey, I remember well the blown up battleship Sovetsky Soyuz in the docks of Nikolaev - there were 406 mm main guns! 3 to 3!

      "Soviet Ukraine" was under construction in Nikolaev. At the beginning of the war, the degree of readiness was 18%. The design armament - the main caliber of nine 406 mm guns - has not been installed. "Soviet Union" was built at the Baltic Shipyard. At the beginning of the war, the degree of readiness was 20%. Armament was not installed. Initially, a series of 15 battleships was planned for construction, but due to lack of funds, only four were laid down. By the beginning of the war, the Barrikady plant had produced 12 barrels of B-37 guns. During the war, only one experimental weapon was used, and is still at the artillery range near Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
      1. Kudrevkn
        Kudrevkn 2 August 2016 21: 53
        +2
        Thank you very much, Mr. Verdun. for your comprehensive short but succinct answer! Thank you!
  16. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 21: 55
    -1
    Quote: KudrevKN
    And yet, Andrey, I remember well the blown up battleship Sovetsky Soyuz in the docks of Nikolaev - there were 406 mm main guns! 3 to 3! It should be a monster - a mastodon, but they didn't manage to finish it - they had to blow it up right at the docks - the Germans entered the city of Nikolaev! Look, for sure there is infa and a photo of this event, which is in many ways tragic for our country? Best regards, Konstantin Nikolaevich.

    Battleship Yamato - 3 x 3 460 mm. In combat readiness since May 1942. Rest, lover of mastodons.
    By the way, do you know what a mastodon is?
    PS And yes! Do you know geometry? I'm talking about quadratic dependence.
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 2 August 2016 22: 29
    +2
    That’s what I’ve always wondered ... Where do the "exposers" hatch from on a regular basis? .. It seems that there is an incubator somewhere ...
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 2 August 2016 23: 21
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      It seems that somewhere there is an incubator ..

      This is not an incubator. This is the center of cloning. The terrible thing is the attack of the clones. smile
  18. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 22: 43
    -2
    Quote: Taoist
    That’s what I’ve always wondered ... Where do the "exposers" hatch from on a regular basis? .. It seems that there is an incubator somewhere ...

    If this is about you, then yes, there is. I do not belong to the Pepsi-next generation, because my opinion often does not correspond to the herd instinct of plankton. I do not like ur-ur. I love the facts. And recently it has become impossible to argue on the site ... Therefore, it has become rare to enter.
  19. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 23: 00
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: nikcris
    In WWI Goeben, alone, the Black Sea Fleet spun as he wanted. Half of the fleet went out to capture him. As a result, in 1918 Goeben turned the "legendary" Sevastopol by his presence at the repair.

    Yeah. The Black Sea Fleet cut off Turkish sea communications, gouged Zonguldak, deprived the capital of coal supplies, forced the entire supply of the Turkish army to dry land, supported the coastal flank of the army (Rostislav simply mocked the Turks there, had just not crawled out to land), conducted (the only fleet in the world for the whole PMV) successful large landings. And Goeben ... what did he do? :))))
    Quote: nikcris
    PS I do not know of such a "legendary" fleet, in which two battleships exploded to smithereens "by themselves")))

    (stocking popcorn) Announce the whole list, please :))) What kind of two battleships exploded there?
    Quote: nikcris
    PS "Put the minus further," legendary ".

    Do not worry, it will not rust behind us :)

    Goeben closed the straits.
    Empress Maria and Novorossiysk.
    Rust)))
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 2 August 2016 23: 23
    0
    Quote: nikcris
    I do not like ur-ur. I love the facts.

    Quote: nikcris
    ebony closed the straits.
    Empress Maria and Novorossiysk.
    Rust)))

    Well, if this "stream of consciousness" is facts ... It seems that they are taking something cooler than Pepsi ...

    "A number of ships of different fleets of the world at one time or another died from an internal explosion. Only in the period from 1905-1918, 9 battleships and 3 cruisers of different fleets were killed for this reason. As a rule, the investigation of these cases always gave the same conclusion: the cause fire-decomposition of unstable gunpowder. The lost ships claimed the lives of more than 2500 people, not counting the wounded and burned. " (c) Expose everyone so ... Proceed ...
  21. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 23: 26
    +1
    Well, at the expense of the "legendary", then remember the Crimean War and the first loss of the Black Sea Fleet. But nobody remembers the legendary feat of the defenders of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in this war. And it was there that the brito-paddling pools got the most from the insignificant garrison and the commands of a couple of ships. The next generation had never even heard of this.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 2 August 2016 23: 33
      -1
      Who are you talking to now?
  22. nikcris
    nikcris 2 August 2016 23: 33
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Quote: nikcris
    I do not like ur-ur. I love the facts.

    Quote: nikcris
    ebony closed the straits.
    Empress Maria and Novorossiysk.
    Rust)))

    Well, if this "stream of consciousness" is facts ... It seems that they are taking something cooler than Pepsi ...

    "A number of ships of different fleets of the world at one time or another died from an internal explosion. Only in the period from 1905-1918, 9 battleships and 3 cruisers of different fleets were killed for this reason. As a rule, the investigation of these cases always gave the same conclusion: the cause fire-decomposition of unstable gunpowder. The lost ships claimed the lives of more than 2500 people, not counting the wounded and burned. " (c) Expose everyone so ... Proceed ...

    Cruiser Maine in Cuba.
    Revealed?
  23. nikcris
    nikcris 3 August 2016 00: 04
    +1
    Quote: Verdun
    Quote: nikcris
    Therefore, tell me that all these light-heavy cruisers, leaders, and other battleships from our side have sunk since 1920. It’s just interesting that they sank a Th-thread ...

    Unfortunately, our fleet did not count victories in surface sea battles during the Second World War. The reason for this is not at all the technical backwardness of ships of certain classes, the same cruisers of the Kirov type, but the general weakness of the surface fleet, the construction program of which had only gained momentum by the beginning of the war. So the heavy cruisers and battleships remained on the stocks, their hands did not reach the aircraft carriers. Yes, and the Germans in the eastern direction did not use large naval forces, since their fleet was also not particularly impressive in composition and the main threat to it was British surface ships. But on the shoulders of our patrolmen and destroyers fell the task of protecting the convoys going to the USSR with military assistance. They coped with this task no worse than the Allied destroyers.
    Please do not bother, that he was a coastal battery - boring.
    If the presence of even a small fleet strains the enemy, forcing him to throw large forces at his destruction, then this fleet exists not in vain.

    Hmm ... If we had aircraft carriers in the Baltic and the Black Sea - then - YES !!! That would have fought !!! Only 40-50 pieces are needed, no less. PMC request

    The Germans did not need the Fleet PS on the eastern front - unlike the rest of the armed forces, it did not pose any danger for them until the end of the war. The Soviet fleet interfered with the Germans in the north and the Japanese in the east. And two elite fleets only pumped out funds from the country's budget. WWII showed it.
  24. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 3 August 2016 11: 38
    +2
    The cruiser of this project did not beat lost despite the dominance of enemy aircraft in the air for more than a year, two of them were shot at by heavy German artillery for more than two years.
    They captured mines, bombs, torpedoes, and heavy artillery shells. Actively acted when German aircraft dominated the air. And most importantly, they shot their ammunition at the main enemy - the German ground forces in 1941-42. In my opinion, this brought more crawl for the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition than the actions of British and American cruisers against Italian, German and Japanese ships.
    1. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 3 August 2016 13: 39
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And most importantly, they shot their ammunition at the main enemy - the German ground forces in 1941-42. In my opinion, this brought more crawl for the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition than the actions of British and American cruisers against Italian, German and Japanese ships.


      Your assumption, to put it mildly, is far from the truth.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 6 August 2016 18: 56
        0
        Our victory in the war was overland. The fleet helped this war as best it could. So he fulfilled his role. Even if he had sunk some "Tirpitz", it would not have affected the course of the war on land. And the fire on the Germans near Leningrad affected.
        Another example is Port Arthur. The fleet did not fulfill any tasks at all. Neither ours nor land.
        Even further. Mediterranean Sea. The British against the Italians. Heroic struggle. But essentially mouse fuss. Almost no role on the course of the war. No matter how the English boasted. But there was such a war. People fought and did their duty. They did what they should.
        1. Artem Popov
          Artem Popov 2 March 2018 00: 31
          -1
          Well, yes, because if you don’t know something, it wasn’t, everything is simple)
          "mouse fuss" - hundreds of sunken ships, including aircraft carriers and battleships, the only theater in Europe with a regular opposition of linear forces. Well, I got it ...
  25. nikcris
    nikcris 3 August 2016 18: 03
    0
    Quote: BORMAN82
    Quote: Kostadinov
    And most importantly, they shot their ammunition at the main enemy - the German ground forces in 1941-42. In my opinion, this brought more crawl for the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition than the actions of British and American cruisers against Italian, German and Japanese ships.


    Your assumption, to put it mildly, is far from the truth.

    And what for them the truth? They in computers defeat even aliens easily. The main thing is to have time to fumble the buttons, as well as then under the covers.