There was a time when strength navy determined by the number of battleships. Those days are long gone, but the power and brutal beauty of these sea mastodons still excites the imagination and generates controversy. Were battleships needed? Were they useful, or did they represent a larger purpose? Let's take a look at five battleship era legends.

The battleship of the Third Reich "Bismarck" lived a short but bright life, which still provides material for literature and cinema. On May 24, 1941, Bismarck, paired with Prinz Eugen, met with two Britons Hood and Prince of Wales. During the ensuing battle, the Hood was sunk, but the Bismarck was also seriously damaged. A three-day pursuit of the German battleship began.

May 27 "Bismarck" took an unequal battle and received a lot of damage, but remained afloat. Even having exhausted all the ammunition, the ship did not lower the flag. In the end, the commander of the ship, Lutyens, ordered the kingstones to be opened and the ship to be abandoned. It should be noted that Bismarck received critical damage from a torpedo fired from an aircraft. The death of the Bismarck was an important signal that the battleships were losing their leading role in the fleet.

The ancient Japanese called their country Yamato, which means "great harmony", "peace". There is some ridicule in the fact that the largest warship in the world was named by that name. Its gigantic 460 mm cannons were capable of sending 1.5 ton projectiles over 25 nautical miles (46 km). The ship's side armor was 410 mm. Despite her enormous weight, the Yamato reached a speed of 27 knots, although she was inferior to the lighter American battleships with their speed of 33 knots.

wikipedia.org

Unlike the Bismarck, the main Japanese battleship remained idle for a long time, as the Japanese command saved the battleships for the alleged general battle of the Japanese and American fleets. During the time of inactivity and transitions between the islands, the Yamato, while standing in the port, received a hole from a torpedo from an American submarine. This battleship also died not from shells from American ships, but from bombs and torpedoes from US naval aviation. It happened on April 7, 1945, off the coast of Okinawa, where the Yamato, along with other ships, was sent to support the island's garrison, who was dying in unequal battles and suicidal attacks.

wikipedia.org

The first two battleships "Iowa" and "New Jersey" class "Iowa" proved themselves during the war in the Pacific. On account of their many battles and victories. The Missouri, belonging to this class, did not have time to prove itself in battles, but went down in history as the ship on which General MacArthur accepted the surrender of Japan. This ship remained in the service of the US Navy for a long time, although it was withdrawn from the main fleet. Missouri fired its last salvo in 1991 during the Gulf War.

"October Revolution" and "Marat"

Both battleships Baltic Fleet The Sevastopol project was laid down and built before the start of the First World War and was already considered obsolete by the Great Patriotic War. They did not participate in naval battles, since the exit to the Baltic Sea was mined on both sides, so neither our ships could safely leave the Gulf of Finland, nor the Germans could enter there.

wikipedia.org

"October Revolution" and "Marat" participated in the defense of Leningrad, supporting the defenders of the city with fire from 305-mm and 120-mm guns. Both ships were seriously damaged (especially the Marat) during enemy air raids in September 1941, but remained afloat and continued to defend Leningrad after repairs. Anchors and anti-aircraft gun (Ivan Tombasov's gun) " October revolution”after the decommissioning of the ship in 1956, they were installed on Anchor Square in Kronstadt in memory of the heroic defense of besieged Leningrad.

"Paris Commune"

wikipedia.org

The British fleet dominated the Mediterranean Sea, and the passage through the Strait of Gibraltar was reliably protected, so German ships did not even dream of getting into the Black Sea. The only battleship Black Sea Fleet"Paris Commune" took part in the defense of Sevastopol, destroying the ground forces of the enemy besieging the city. In total, the main caliber guns of the battleship fired three thousand shots. Anti-aircraft artillery successfully repulsed 21 air attacks, thanks to which the ship did not receive a single serious damage throughout the war.

World War II became the swan song of the great battleships. Operations in the Pacific made it clear that dominance of the sea had shifted from battleships to aircraft carriers. Since then, the United States has relied on aircraft carrier groups, which have become the main instrument of global dominance. But that's a completely different story.

USS BB-63 Missouri, September 1945, Tokyo Bay

Although the previous part on battleships was the final one, there is one more topic that I would like to discuss separately. Booking. In this article, we will try to determine the optimal armor system for WWII battleships and conditionally “create” an ideal armor scheme for WWII period battleships.

The task, it must be said, is completely non-trivial. It is almost impossible to pick up a reservation “for all occasions”, the fact is that the battleship, as the ultimate artillery system of war at sea, solved many problems and, accordingly, was exposed to the entire spectrum of weapons of those times. The designers faced a completely thankless task - to ensure the combat stability of the battleships, despite the numerous hits of bombs, torpedoes and heavy enemy shells.

To do this, the designers carried out numerous calculations and full-scale experiments in search of the optimal combination of types, thicknesses and location of the armor. And, of course, it immediately became clear that solutions "for all occasions" simply do not exist - any solution that gives an advantage in one combat situation turned into a disadvantage in other circumstances. Below are the main challenges faced by the designers.

Armor belt - external or internal?

The advantages of placing the armored belt inside the hull seem to be obvious. Firstly, it increases the level of vertical protection in general - the projectile, before hitting the armor, has to break through a certain number of steel hull structures. Which can bring down the "Makarov tip", which will lead to a significant drop in the armor penetration of the projectile (up to a third). Secondly, if the upper edge of the armored belt is inside the hull - albeit not by much, but the area of ​​​​the armored deck is reduced - and this is a very, very significant weight savings. And thirdly, a well-known simplification of the manufacture of armor plates (it is not necessary to strictly repeat the contours of the hull, as it should be done when installing an external armor belt). From the point of view of an artillery duel, LK with their own kind seems to be the optimal solution.

Armor schemes for North Carolina and South Dakota-type LCs, with external and internal armor belts, respectively

But exactly what "seems to be." Let's start from the beginning - increased armor resistance. This myth has its origins in the work of Nathan Okun, an American who works as a control systems programmer for the US Navy. But before proceeding to the analysis of his work - a small educational program.

What is a "Makarov" tip (more precisely, a "Makarov" cap)? It was invented by Admiral S.O. Makarov at the end of the 19th century. This is a soft, unalloyed steel tip that flattens on impact, simultaneously causing the hard top layer of armor to crack. Following this, the solid main part of the armor-piercing projectile easily pierced the lower layers of armor - much less hard (why the armor has a non-uniform hardness - see below). This tip will not exist - the projectile can simply split in the process of “overcoming” the armor and will not penetrate the armor at all, or it will penetrate the armor only in the form of fragments. But it is obvious that if the projectile meets with spaced armor, the tip will “spend itself” on the first obstacle and come out to the second with significantly reduced armor penetration. That is why shipbuilders (and not only them) have a natural desire - to smash the armor. But it makes sense to do this only if the first layer of armor has a thickness that is guaranteed to remove the tip.

So, Okun, referring to the post-war tests of English, French and American shells, claims that to remove the tip, an armor thickness equal to 0.08 (8%) of the caliber of an armor-piercing projectile is sufficient. That is, for example, in order to decapitate a 460 mm Japanese ARS, only 36,8 mm of armor steel is enough - which is more than normal for hull structures (this figure for the Iowa LK reached 38 mm). Accordingly, according to Okun, the placement of the armor belt inside gave it a resistance of at least 30% greater than that of the outer armor belt. This myth is widely replicated by the press and repeated in the works of famous researchers.

And yet, it's just a myth. Yes, Okun's calculations are indeed based on actual shell test data. But for tank shells! For them, the indicator of 8% of the caliber is really true. But for large-caliber ARSs, this figure is significantly higher. Tests of the 380 mm Bismarck projectile showed that the destruction of the "Makarov" cap is possible, but not guaranteed, starting with a barrier thickness of 12% of the projectile caliber. And this is already 45.6 mm. Those. the defense of the same "Iowa" had absolutely no chance to remove the tip not only of the Yamato shells, but even of the Bismarck shells. Therefore, in his later works, Okun consistently increased this figure first to 12%, then to 14-17% and, in the end, to 25% - the thickness of the armored steel (homogeneous armor) at which the "Makarov" cap is removed guaranteed.

In other words, for guaranteed removal of the tips of 356-460 mm shells of WWII battleships, a shell needs from 89-115 mm of armor steel (homogeneous armor), although there is some chance to remove this very tip already at thicknesses from 50 to 64.5 mm. The only WWII battleship that had truly spaced armor was the Italian Littorio, which had the first armor belt 70 mm thick, and even on a 10 mm lining of extra strong steel. We will return to the effectiveness of such protection a little later. Accordingly, all other WWII battleships that had an internal armor belt did not have any significant advantages in protection relative to the LC with an external armor belt of the same thickness.

As for the simplification of the production of armor plates, it was not so significant, and more than offset by the technical complexity of installing an armored belt inside the ship.

In addition, from the point of view of combat stability in general, the internal armored belt is completely unprofitable. Even minor damage (small-caliber shells, an aerial bomb that exploded near the side) inevitably leads to damage to the hull, and, albeit minor, flooding of the PTZ - which means inevitable repairs in the dock upon returning to base. From which LCs with an external armored belt are spared. During WWII, there were cases when a torpedo fired at the LC, for some reason, fell under the very waterline. In this case, extensive PTZ damage to a battleship with an internal armor belt is guaranteed, while battleships with an external armor belt got off, as a rule, with a “light fright”.

So it will not be a mistake to state that the internal armored belt has one single advantage - if its upper edge does not “go out”, but is located inside the hull, then it allows you to reduce the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe main armored deck (which, as a rule, rested on its upper edge) . But such a decision reduces the width of the citadel - with obviously negative consequences for stability.

Summing up, we make a choice - on our "ideal" battleship, the armor belt should be external.

In the end, it’s not for nothing that the American designers of those times, who by no means can be suspected of either a sudden “softening of the brain” or other similar diseases, immediately after the abolition of restrictions on displacement in the design of the Montana battleships, abandoned the internal armor belt in favor of the outside.

USS BB-56 Washington, 1945, the "step" of the outer armor belt is clearly visible

Armored belt - monolithic or spaced apart?

According to studies of the 30s, monolithic armor as a whole resists physical impact better than spaced armor of equal thickness. But the impact of the projectile on the layers of spaced protection is uneven - if the first layer of armor removes the "Makarov cap". According to numerous sources, the armor penetration of an ARS with a knocked-off tip is reduced by a third, for further calculations we will take a decrease in armor penetration of 30%. Let's try to estimate the effectiveness of monolithic and spaced armor against the impact of a 406 mm projectile.

During WWII, it was widely believed that at normal combat distances, for high-quality protection against enemy projectiles, an armored belt was required, the thickness of which was equal to the caliber of the projectile. In other words, against a 406 mm projectile, a 406 mm armored belt was required. Monolithic, of course. And if you take spaced armor?

As already written above, for the guaranteed removal of the "Makarov" cap, armor was required with a thickness of 0.25 caliber of the projectile. Those. the first layer of armor, which is guaranteed to remove the Makarov cap of a 406 mm projectile, should have a thickness of 101.5 mm. This will be sufficient even if the projectile hits normal - and any deviation from the normal will only increase the effective protection of the first layer of armor. Of course, the indicated 101.5 mm projectile will not stop, but will reduce its armor penetration by 30%. Obviously, now the thickness of the second layer of armor can be calculated by the formula: (406 mm - 101.5 mm) * 0.7 = 213.2 mm, where 0.7 is the coefficient of reduction in the armor penetration of the projectile. In total, two sheets of a total thickness of 314.7 mm are equivalent to 406 mm of monolithic armor.

This calculation is not entirely accurate - since the researchers have established that monolithic armor withstands physical impact better than spaced armor of the same thickness, then, apparently, 314.7 mm still will not be equivalent to 406 mm monolith. But nowhere is it said how spaced armor is inferior to a monolith - and we have a good margin of safety (still 314.7 mm is 1.29 times less than 406 mm) which is obviously higher than the notorious decrease in the resistance of spaced armor.

In addition, there are other factors in favor of spaced armor. The Italians, designing armor protection for their Littorio, conducted practical tests and found that when the projectile deviated from the normal, i.e. when hitting the armor at an angle other than 90°, the projectile for some reason tends to turn perpendicular to the armor. Thus, to a certain extent, the effect of increasing armor protection due to the impact of a projectile at an angle other than 90 ° is lost. So, if the armor is spread quite a bit, say, by 25-30 centimeters, then the first sheet of armor blocks the back of the projectile and does not allow it to turn around - i.e. the projectile can no longer turn at 90 ° to the main armor plate. Which, of course, again increases the armor resistance of protection.

True, spaced armor has one drawback. If a torpedo hits the armored belt, it is quite possible that it will break through the first sheet of armor, while hitting monolithic armor will only leave a couple of scratches. But, on the other hand, it may not break through, and on the other hand, there will not be any serious flooding even in the PTZ.

The technical complexity of creating a spaced armor installation on a ship raises questions. It's probably more difficult than a monolith. But, on the other hand, it is much easier for metallurgists to roll two sheets of much smaller thickness (even in total) than one monolithic one, and Italy, by no means the leader of world technological progress, but it installed such protection on its Littorio.

So for our "ideal" battleship, the choice is obvious - spaced armor.

Armored belt - vertical or inclined?

It seems that the advantages of an inclined armored belt are obvious. How sharper angle, under which a heavy projectile hits the armor, the more armor the projectile will have to penetrate, which means the more chances that the armor will resist. And the slope of the armored belt obviously increases the sharpness of the angle of impact of shells. However, the greater the slope of the armored belt - the greater the height of its plates - the greater the mass of the armored belt as a whole. Let's try to count.

The basics of geometry tell us that an inclined armored belt will always be longer than a vertical armored belt covering the same side height. After all, a vertical side with an inclined armor belt form a right triangle, where the vertical side is a leg right triangle, and the inclined armored belt is the hypotenuse. Angle between them equal to the angle slope of the armored belt.

Let's try to calculate the characteristics of the armor protection of two hypothetical battleships (LK No. 1 and LK No. 2). LK No. 1 has a vertical armored belt, LK No. 2 is inclined, at an angle of 19 °. Both armored belts cover the height of 7 meters of the side. Both are 300mm thick.

It is obvious that the height of the vertical armor belt of LK No. 1 will be exactly 7 meters. The height of the armored belt of LK No. 2 will be 7 meters / cos angle 19 °, i.e. 7 meters / 0.945519 = approximately 7.4 meters. Accordingly, the inclined armor belt will be 7.4m / 7m = 1.0576 times higher than the vertical one, or approximately 5.76%.

It follows that the inclined armored belt will be 5.76% heavier than the vertical one. This means that by allocating an equal mass of armor for the armor belts LK No. 1 and LK No. 2, we can increase the thickness of the armor of the vertical armor belt by the indicated 5.76%.

In other words, having spent the same mass of armor, we can either install an inclined armor belt at an angle of 19 ° with a thickness of 300 mm, or install a vertical armor belt with a thickness of 317.3 mm.

If an enemy projectile flies parallel to the water, i.e. at an angle of 90 ° to the side and the vertical armor belt, then it will be met either by 317.3 mm of the vertical armor belt, or ... exactly the same 317.3 mm of the inclined armor belt. Because in the triangle formed by the flight line of the projectile (hypotenuse) the thickness of the armor of the inclined belt (adjacent leg), the angle between the hypotenuse and the leg will be exactly 19 ° of the slope of the armor plates. Those. we don't win anything.

It is a completely different matter when the projectile hits the side not at 90 °, but, say, at 60 ° (deviation from the normal is 30 °). Now, using the same formula, we get the result that when hitting vertical armor with a thickness of 317.3 mm, the projectile will have to penetrate 366.4 mm of armor, while if it hits 300 mm of inclined armor belt, the projectile will have to penetrate 457.3 mm of armor. Those. when a projectile falls at an angle of 30 ° to the sea surface, the effective thickness of the inclined belt will exceed the protection of the vertical armor belt by as much as 24.8%!

So the effectiveness of the inclined armored belt is obvious. An inclined armor belt of the same mass as a vertical one, although it will have a slightly smaller thickness, but its resistance is equal to the resistance of a vertical armor belt when shells hit perpendicular to the side (flat shooting), and when this angle is reduced when firing from long distances, as happens in real sea ​​battle, the resistance of the inclined armored belt is growing. So, is the choice obvious?

Not really. Free cheese only happens in a mousetrap.

Let's take the idea of ​​an inclined armor belt to the point of absurdity. Here we have an armor plate 7 meters high and 300 mm thick. A projectile flies into it at an angle of 90 °. He will be met by only 300 mm of armor - but these 300 mm cover a side of 7 m in height. What if we tilt the stove? Then the projectile will have to overcome more than 300 mm of armor (depending on the angle of the plate - but the height of the protected side will also decrease, and the more we tilt the plate - the thicker our armor, but the less the side it covers. Apotheosis - when we turn the plate by 90 °, we get as much as seven meters of armor thickness - but these 7 meters of thickness will cover a narrow strip of 300 mm of the side.

In our example, the inclined armor belt, when the projectile fell at an angle of 30 ° to the water surface, turned out to be 24.8% more effective than the vertical armor belt. But, again remembering the basics of geometry, we find that from such a projectile an inclined armor belt covers exactly 24.8% less area than a vertical one.

So the miracle, alas, did not happen. The inclined armor belt increases armor resistance in proportion to the reduction in the area of ​​protection. The greater the deviation of the projectile trajectory from the normal, the more protection the inclined armored belt gives - but the smaller the area this same armored belt covers.

But this is not the only drawback of the inclined armored belt. The fact is that already at a distance of 100 cables, the deviation of the projectile from the normal, i.e. the angle of the projectile relative to the surface of the water, the main guns of the WWII battleships is from 12 to 17.8 ° (V. Kofman, “Japanese battleships of the Second World War Yamato and Musashi”, p. 124). At a distance of 150 kbt, these angles increase to 23.5-34.9 °. Add to this another 19 ° slope of the armored belt, for example, as on a South Dakota type LK, and we get 31-36.8 ° per 100 kbt and 42.5-53.9 ° per 150 cable ones.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that European shells ricocheted or split already at 30-35 ° deviation from the normal, Japanese - at 20-25 °, and only American ones could withstand a deviation of 35-45 °. (V.N. Chausov, American battleships of the South Dakota class).

It turns out that the inclined armor belt, located at an angle of 19 °, practically guaranteed that the European projectile would split or ricochet already at a distance of 100 kbt (18.5 km). If it breaks, great, but if there is a rebound? The fuse may well be cocked from a strong glancing blow. Then the projectile will “slide” along the armored belt and go straight down through the PTZ, where it will fully explode almost under the bottom of the ship ... No, we don’t need such “protection”.

And what to choose for our "ideal" battleship?

Our promising battleship should have vertical spaced armor. The spacing of the armor will significantly increase protection with the same mass of armor, and its vertical position will provide the maximum area of ​​​​protection during long-range combat.

HMS King George V, the outer armor belt is also clearly visible

Casemate and armoring of extremities - is it necessary or not?

As you know, there were 2 LK booking systems. “All or nothing”, when only the citadel was armored, but with the most powerful armor, or when the extremities of the LK were also armored, and a second one, though of lesser thickness, passed over the main armored belt. The Germans called this second belt a casemate, although, of course, the second armored belt was not any casemate in the original sense of the word.

The easiest way is to decide on the casemate - because this thing on the LC is almost completely useless. The thickness of the casemate coolly “ate off” the weight, but did not provide any protection against heavy enemy shells. It is worth considering only a very narrow range of trajectories in which the projectile first pierced the casemate, and then hit the armored deck. But this did not give a significant increase in protection, besides, the casemate did not protect against bombs in any way. Of course, the casemate provided additional cover for the barbettes of the gun turrets. But it would be much easier to book barbettes more thoroughly, which, moreover, would give considerable savings in weight. In addition, the barbet is usually round, which means that the probability of rebound is very high. So the LC casemate is completely unnecessary. Perhaps in the form of anti-fragmentation armor, but this, perhaps, could well be handled by a slight thickening of the hull steel.

A completely different matter is the reservation of the extremities. If it is easy for the casemate to say a resolute “no”, then it is also easy for the armoring of the extremities to say a resolute “yes”. Suffice it to recall what happened to the unarmored extremities of even battleships as resistant to damage as Yamato and Musashi were. Even relatively weak strikes against them led to extensive flooding, which, although not in the least threatening the existence of the ship, required lengthy repairs.

So we armor the extremities of our "ideal" battleship, and let our enemies set up a casemate for themselves.

Well, everything seems to be with an armored belt. Let's go to the deck.

Armored deck - one or many?

History has not given a definitive answer to this question. On the one hand, as already written above, it was believed that one monolithic deck would hold a blow better than several decks of the same total thickness. On the other hand, let's remember the idea of ​​spaced armor, because heavy bombs could also be equipped with a "Makarov" cap.

In general, it turns out that from the point of view of bomb resistance, the American deck armor system looks preferable. The upper deck is for the “fuse platoon”, the second deck, which is also the main one, in order to withstand a bomb explosion, and the third, anti-fragmentation deck, in order to “intercept” the fragments if the main armored deck still fails.

But from the point of view of resistance to large-caliber projectiles, such a scheme is ineffective.

Such a case is known to history - this is the shelling of the unfinished Jean Bar by Massachusetts. Modern researchers almost sing praises to the French battleships in unison - the majority of votes say that the Richelieu booking system was the best in the world.

What happened in practice? This is how S. Suliga describes it in his book “French LK “Richelieu” and “Jean Bar”.

"Massachusetts" opened fire on the battleship at 08 m (07.04) with the starboard side from a distance of 22000 m, at 08.40 she began to turn 16 points towards the coast, temporarily ceasing fire, at 08.47 she resumed firing already with the port side and finished it at 09.33. During this time, he fired 9 full volleys (9 rounds each) and 38 volleys of 3 or 6 rounds at the Jean Bar and the El-Khank battery. The French battleship had five direct hits (according to French data - seven).

One shell from a volley that fell at 08.25 hit the aft from the starboard side above the admiral's saloon, pierced the deck of the spardeck, the upper, main armored (150 mm), lower armored (40 mm) and 7 mm flooring of the first platform, exploding in the cellar closest to the stern of the onboard 152-mm towers, fortunately empty.

What do we see? The magnificent protection of the Frenchman (190 mm of armor and two more decks - no joke!) were easily broken through by an American shell.

By the way, here it would be appropriate to say a few words about the calculations of free maneuvering zones (ZSM, in the English literature - the immune zone). The meaning of this indicator is that the greater the distance to the ship, the greater the angle of incidence of shells. And the larger this angle, the less likely it is to break through the armored belt, but the more likely it is to break through the armored deck. Accordingly, the beginning of the free maneuvering zone is the distance from which the armored belt is no longer penetrated by the projectile and the armored deck is not yet penetrated. And the end of the free maneuvering zone is the distance from which the projectile still begins to pierce the armored deck. Obviously, the ship's maneuvering zone for each specific projectile is its own, since armor penetration directly depends on the speed and mass of the projectile.

The free maneuvering zone is one of the most beloved indicators of both ship designers and researchers of the history of shipbuilding. But a number of authors have no confidence in this indicator. The same S. Suliga writes: “The 170-mm armored deck above the Richelieu cellars is the next thickest behind the only armored deck of the Japanese Yamato. If we also take into account the lower deck and express the horizontal protection of these ships in the equivalent thickness of the American “class B” deck armor, then we get 193 mm versus 180 mm in favor of the French battleship. Thus, the Richelieu had the best deck armor among all the ships in the world.

Wonderful! Obviously, the "Richelieu" was better armored than the same "South Dakota", which had armored decks with a total thickness of 179-195 mm, of which homogeneous "class B" armor was 127-140 mm, and the rest was structural steel inferior to it in strength. However, the calculated indicator of the South Dakota free maneuvering zone under fire from the same 1220 kg 406 mm shells ranged from 18.7 to 24.1 km. And "Massachusetts" broke through a better deck than the "South Dakota" from about 22 km!

Another example. After the war, the Americans shot off the frontal plates of the towers planned for the Yamato-class LK. They got one such plate, it was taken to the training ground and fired at with heavy American 1220 kg shells of the latest modification. Mark 8 mod. 6. They fired so that the projectile hit the plate at an angle of 90 degrees. They fired 2 shots, the first shell did not penetrate the plate. For the second shot, an enhanced charge was used, i.e. provided increased projectile speed. The armor has shattered. The Japanese modestly commented on these tests - they reminded the Americans that the plate they were testing was rejected by acceptance. But even the rejected slab broke only after the second hit, moreover, by an artificially accelerated projectile.

The paradox of the situation is this. The thickness of the tested Japanese armor was 650 mm. At the same time, absolutely all sources claim that the quality of Japanese armor was worse than the average world standards. The author, unfortunately, does not know the shooting parameters ( starting speed projectile, distance, etc.) But V. Kofman in his book “Japanese LK Yamato and Musashi” claims that in those polygon conditions, the American 406 mm gun in theory should have penetrated 664 mm of armor of the average world level! But in real life, they could not overcome 650 mm of armor of obviously worse quality. So believe after that in the exact sciences!

But back to our sheep, i.e. to horizontal armor. In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that the spaced horizontal armor did not hold artillery strikes well. On the other hand, the only, but thick, armored deck of the Yamato proved to be not so bad against American bombs.

Therefore, it seems to us that the optimal horizontal armor looks like this - a thick armored deck, and below - a thin anti-fragmentation one.

Armored deck - with or without bevels?

Bevels are one of the most controversial issues of horizontal booking. Their merit is great. Let us examine the case when the main, thickest armored deck has bevels.

They participate in both horizontal and vertical defense of the citadel. At the same time, the bevels save the overall weight of the armor very decently - after all, this is, in fact, the same inclined armored belt, only in a horizontal plane. The thickness of the bevels may be less than that of deck armor - but due to the slope, they will provide the same horizontal protection as horizontal armor of the same weight. And with the same thickness of the bevels, the horizontal protection will increase greatly - though along with the mass. But horizontal armor protects only the horizontal plane - and bevels are also involved in vertical protection, allowing you to weaken the armor belt. In addition, bevels, unlike horizontal armor of the same weight, are located lower - which reduces the upper weight and has a positive effect on the stability of the ship.

The disadvantages of bevels are a continuation of their merits. The fact is that there are two approaches to vertical protection - the first approach is to generally prevent the penetration of enemy projectiles. Those. side armor should be the heaviest - this is how the Yamato's vertical protection was implemented. But with this approach, duplication of the armored belt with bevels is simply not necessary. There is another approach, its example is Bismarck. The Bismarck designers did not seek to make an impenetrable armored belt. They settled on such a thickness that would prevent the penetration of the projectile for the armor belt as a whole at reasonable combat distances. And in this case, large fragments of the projectile and the explosion of a half-scattered explosive were reliably blocked by bevels.

Obviously, the first approach of "impenetrable" defense is relevant for "ultimate" battleships, which are created as super-fortresses without any artificial restrictions. Such battleships simply do not need bevels - why? Their armored belt is already strong enough. But for battleships, whose displacement is limited for some reason, bevels become very relevant, because. allow you to achieve approximately the same armor resistance at a much lower cost of armor.

But still, the “bevels + relatively thin armored belt” scheme is vicious. The fact is that this scheme a priori assumes that the shells will explode inside the citadel - between the armored belt and bevels. As a result, a battleship armored according to such a scheme in conditions of intense combat will share the fate of the Bismarck - the battleship very quickly lost its combat capability. Yes, the bevels perfectly protected the ship from flooding and the engine rooms from the penetration of shells. But what's the use of that when the rest of the ship has long been a blazing wreck?

Comparison of armor schemes, armored and unprotected volumes of LK types Bismarck / Tirpitz and King George V

Another minus. Bevels also significantly reduce the reserved volume of the citadel. Pay attention to where the armored deck of the Tirpitz is located in comparison with the King George V. Due to the weakened armored belt, all rooms above the armored deck, in fact, were given to be torn to pieces by enemy ARSs.

Summarizing the above, the optimal booking system for our "ideal" battleship during the Second World War would be the following. Vertical armor belt - with spaced armor, the first sheet - at least 100 mm, the second - 300 mm, separated from each other by no more than 250-300 mm. Horizontal armor - upper deck - 200 mm, without bevels, rests on the upper edges of the armor belt. Lower deck - 20-30 mm with bevels to the lower edge of the armored belt. The extremities are lightly armored. The second armored belt (casemate) is missing.

Battleship Richelieu, post-war photo

P.P.S. The article is posted intentionally, given its great potential "disputability". ;-)

For a complete understanding of the picture: a battleship is a class of heavy armored artillery warships with a displacement of 20 to 70 thousand tons, a length of 150 to 280 m, with a main caliber guns of 280-460 mm, with a crew of 1500-2800 people.

Battleships became the evolutionary development of the battleships of the second half of XIX century. But before they were sunk-decommissioned-turned into museums, the ships had to go through a lot. We'll talk about this.

Richelieu

• Length - 247.9 m
• Displacement - 47 thousand tons

Named after the famous statesman of France, Cardinal Richelieu. It was built to stop the raging fleet of Italy. He never went into a real battle, except for participation in the Senegalese operation in 1940. Sadness: in 1968, "Richelieu" was sent for scrap. Only one of his guns survived - they were installed in the port of Brest as a monument.

Source: wikipedia.org

Bismarck

• Length - 251 m
• Displacement - 51 thousand tons

Left the shipyard in 1939. When launching, the Fuhrer of the entire Third Reich, Adolf Hitler himself, was present. Bismarck is one of the most famous ships Second World War. He heroically destroyed the English flagship, the cruiser Hood. For this, he also paid a heroic price: they staged a real hunt for the battleship, and yet they caught it. In May 1941, British boats and torpedo bombers sank Bismarck with a long battle.

Source: wikipedia.org

Tirpitz

• Length - 253.6 m
• Displacement - 53 thousand tons

Though the second largest battleship Nazi Germany was launched in 1939, he practically could not take part in real battles. With his presence, he simply kept the hands of the Arctic convoy of the USSR and the British fleet tied. Tirpitz was sunk in 1944 as a result of an air raid. And then with the help of special super-heavy bombs like Tallboy.

Source: wikipedia.org

Yamato

• Length - 263 m
• Crew - 2500 people

The Yamato is one of the largest battleships in the world and the largest warship in history ever sunk in a naval battle. Until October 1944, he practically did not participate in battles. So, “little things”: fired at American ships.

On April 6, 1945, he went on another campaign, the goal was to resist the Yankee troops that had landed on Okinawa. As a result, for 2 hours in a row, the Yamato and other Japanese ships were in hell - they were fired upon by 227 American deck ships. Japan's largest battleship caught 23 hits from air bombs and torpedoes → ripped the bow compartment → the ship sank. Of the crew, 269 people survived, 3 thousand sailors died.

Source: wikipedia.org

Musashi

• Length - 263 m
• Displacement - 72 thousand tons

The second largest Japanese ship of the Second World War. Launched in 1942. The fate of Musashi is tragic:

• the first campaign - a hole in the bow (torpedo attack by an American submarine);
• the last campaign (October 1944, in the Sibuyan Sea) - came under attack by American aircraft, caught 30 torpedoes and bombs;
• along with the ship, its captain and more than a thousand crew members died.

On March 4, 2015, 70 years after the sinking, the Musashi sunk in the waters of Sibuyan was discovered by American millionaire Paul Allen. The battleship rested at a depth of one and a half kilometers.

Source: wikipedia.org

Soviet Union

• Length - 269 m
• Displacement - 65 thousand tons

"Sovki" did not build battleships. They tried only once - in 1938 they began to lay down the "Soviet Union" (Project 23 battleship). By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the ship was 19% ready. But the Germans began to actively attack, and terribly frightened the Soviet politicians. The latter, with trembling hands, signed a decree to stop the construction of the battleship, they threw all their efforts into stamping “thirty-fours”. After the war, the ship was dismantled for metal.

World War II was the golden age of battleships. The powers that claimed dominance at sea, in the pre-war years and the first few war years, laid on the stocks several dozen giant armored ships with powerful main-caliber guns. As the practice of the combat use of “steel monsters” has shown, battleships acted very effectively against formations of enemy warships, even being in the numerical minority, capable of terrifying convoys from cargo ships, but they can practically oppose nothing to aircraft that, with several hits of torpedoes and bombs, can let multi-ton giants to the bottom. During the Second World War, the Germans and Japanese preferred not to risk battleships, keeping them away from the main naval battles, throwing them into battle only at critical moments, using them very inefficiently. In turn, the Americans mainly used battleships to cover aircraft carrier groups and amphibious landings in the Pacific Ocean. Meet the ten biggest battleships of World War II.

10. Richelieu, France

Battleship "Richelieu" of the same class, has a weight of 47,500 tons and a length of 247 meters, eight guns of the main caliber of 380 mm caliber placed in two towers. The ships of this class were created by the French to counter the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean. The ship was launched in 1939 and was adopted by the French Navy a year later. The Richelieu did not actually take part in the Second World War, except for a collision with a British aircraft carrier group in 1941, during an American operation against Vichy forces in Africa. AT post-war period the battleship was involved in the war in Indochina, covering naval convoys and supporting French troops with fire during landing operations. The battleship was withdrawn from the fleet and decommissioned in 1967.

9. Jean Bar, France

The French battleship "Jean Bar", class "Richelieu", was launched in 1940, but by the beginning of the Second World War, it was never put into the fleet. At the time of the German attack on France, the ship was 75% ready (only one main battery turret was installed), the battleship was able to get from Europe to the Moroccan port of Casablanca under its own power. Despite the absence of part of the weapons, the Jean Bar managed to take part in the hostilities on the side of the Axis countries, repelling the attacks of the US-British forces during the Allied landing in Morocco. After several hits by the main caliber guns of American battleships and aerial bombs, the ship sank on November 10, 1942. In 1944, "Jean Bar" was raised and sent to the shipyards for repairs and rearmament. The ship became part of the French Navy only in 1949, never took part in any military operation. In 1961, the battleship was withdrawn from the fleet and sent for scrap.

8. Tirpitz, Germany

The German battleship Tirpitz of the Bismarck class, launched in 1939 and put into service in 1940, had a displacement of 40,153 tons and a length of 251 meters. Eight main guns with a caliber of 380 millimeters were placed in four towers. Vessels of this class were intended for raider operations against the enemy merchant fleet. During the Second World War, after the loss of the battleship Bismarck, the German command preferred not to use heavy ships in the maritime theater of operations, in order to avoid their loss. Tirpitz spent most of the war in the fortified Norwegian fjords, taking part in only three operations to intercept convoys and support landings on the islands. The battleship sank on November 14, 1944 during a raid by British bombers, after being hit by three aerial bombs.

7. Bismarck, Germany

The battleship Bismarck, commissioned in 1940, is the only ship on this list to take part in a truly epic naval battle. For three days, the Bismarck, in the North Sea and the Atlantic, stood alone against almost the entire British fleet. The battleship was able to sink the pride of the British fleet, the cruiser Hood, in battle, and seriously damaged several ships. After numerous hits by shells and torpedoes, the battleship went under water on May 27, 1941.

6. Wisconsin, USA

The American battleship "Wisconsin", class "Iowa", with a displacement of 55,710 tons, has a length of 270 meters, on board, which has three turrets with nine 406 mm main battery guns. The ship was launched in 1943 and entered service in 1944. In 1991, the ship was withdrawn from the fleet, but remained in the US Navy reserve until 2006, becoming the last battleship in the US Navy reserve. During World War II, the ship was used to escort aircraft carrier groups, support amphibious operations, and bombard the coastal fortifications of the Japanese army. In the post-war period, he participated in the Persian Gulf War.

5. New Jersey, USA

The Iowa-class battleship New Jersey was launched in 1942 and entered service in 1943. The ship went through several major upgrades, and was eventually decommissioned from the fleet in 1991. During the Second World War, it was used to escort aircraft carrier groups, but did not really participate in any serious naval battle. For the next 46 years, she participated in the Korean, Vietnamese and Libyan wars as a support ship.

4. Missouri, USA

The Iowa-class battleship Missouri was launched in 1944 and commissioned into the Pacific Fleet the same year. The ship was withdrawn from the fleet in 1992, and turned into a floating museum ship, which is now available for anyone to visit. During the Second World War, the battleship was used to escort aircraft carrier groups and support amphibious landings, and did not participate in any serious naval battle. It was on board the Missouri that the Japanese surrender pact was signed, which put an end to World War II. In the post-war period, the battleship participated in only one major military operation, namely the Gulf War, during which the Missouri provided fire support to the multinational forces from the sea.

3. Iowa, USA

The Iowa battleship, class of the same name, was launched in 1942 and was put into service a year later, fought on all oceanic fronts of World War II. At first, he patrolled the northern latitudes of the US Atlantic coast, after which he was transferred to the Pacific Ocean, where he covered aircraft carrier groups, supported landing forces, attacked enemy coastal fortifications and participated in several maritime interception operations shock groups Japanese fleet. During the Korean War, she provided artillery fire support for ground forces from the sea. In 1990, the Iowa was decommissioned and turned into a museum ship.

2. Yamato, Japan

The pride of the Japanese Imperial Navy, the Yamato battleship had a length of 247 meters, weighed 47,500 tons, had three turrets with 9 460 mm main caliber guns on board. The ship was launched in 1939, but was ready to go to sea on a military campaign only in 1942. For the entire duration of the war, the battleship took part in only three real battles, of which only in one was it able to fire on enemy ships from main battery guns. Yamato was sunk on 7 April 1945 by enemy aircraft after being hit by 13 torpedoes and 13 bombs. Today, the Yamato-class ships are considered the largest battleships in the world.

1. Musashi, Japan

Musashi younger brother battleship "Yamato", has similar specifications and weapons. The ship was launched in 1940, was put into service in 1942, but was ready to go on a military campaign only in 1943. The battleship participated in only one serious naval battle, trying to prevent the Allies from landing troops in the Philippines. On October 24, 1944, after a 16-hour battle, Musashi sank in the Sibuyan Sea, after being hit by several torpedoes and aerial bombs. Musashi, along with her brother Yamato, is considered the largest battleship in the world.

05/24/2016 at 20:10 · pavlofox · 22 250

The largest battleships in the world

For the first time ships of the line appeared in the 17th century. For a while, they lost the palm to slow-moving armadillos. But at the beginning of the 20th century, battleships became the main force of the fleet. The speed and range of artillery pieces became the main advantages in naval battles. Countries concerned about increasing the power of the navy, since the 1930s of the 20th century, began to actively build heavy-duty battleships designed to enhance superiority at sea. Not everyone could afford the construction of incredibly expensive ships. The largest battleships in the world - in this article we will talk about super-powerful giant ships.

10. Richelieu | Length 247.9 m

The French giant "" opens the rating of the largest battleships in the world with a length of 247.9 meters and a displacement of 47 thousand tons. The ship is named after the famous statesman of France, Cardinal Richelieu. A battleship was built to counter the Italian navy. The battleship Richelieu did not conduct active hostilities, except for participation in the Senegal operation in 1940. In 1968, the supership was scrapped. One of his guns was erected as a monument in the port of Brest.

9. Bismarck | Length 251 m

Legendary german ship"" takes 9th place among the largest battleships in the world. The length of the vessel is 251 meters, the displacement is 51 thousand tons. The Bismarck left the shipyard in 1939. The Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, was present at its launch. One of the most famous ships of the Second World War was sunk in May 1941 after prolonged fighting by British ships and torpedo bombers in retaliation for the destruction of the British flagship, the cruiser Hood, by a German battleship.

8. Tirpitz | Ship 253.6 m

On the 8th place in the list of the largest battleships is the German "". The length of the vessel was 253.6 meters, displacement - 53 thousand tons. After the death of the "big brother", "Bismarck", the second of the most powerful German battleships practically failed to take part in naval battles. Launched in 1939, the Tirpitz was destroyed in 1944 by torpedo bombers.

7. Yamato | Length 263 m

"- one of the largest battleships in the world and the largest warship in history ever sunk in a sea battle.

"Yamato" (in translation, the name of the ship means the ancient name of the Land of the Rising Sun) was the pride of the Japanese navy, although due to the fact that the huge ship was protected, the attitude of ordinary sailors towards it was ambiguous.

The Yamato entered service in 1941. The length of the battleship was 263 meters, displacement - 72 thousand tons. Crew - 2500 people. Until October 1944, the most big ship Japan practically did not participate in the battles. In Leyte Gulf, the Yamato opened fire on American ships for the first time. As it turned out later, none of the main calibers hit the target.

Japan's last pride hike

On April 6, 1945, the Yamato went on its last campaign. American troops landed on Okinawa, and the remnants of the Japanese fleet were tasked with destroying enemy forces and supply ships. The Yamato and the rest of the ships of the formation were attacked by 227 American deck ships for a two-hour period. Japan's largest battleship went out of action, having received about 23 hits from aerial bombs and torpedoes. As a result of the explosion of the bow compartment, the ship sank. Of the crew, 269 people survived, 3 thousand sailors died.

6. Musashi | Length 263 m

The largest battleships in the world include "" with a hull length of 263 meters and a displacement of 72 thousand tons. This is the second giant battleship built by Japan during World War II. The ship entered service in 1942. The fate of "Musashi" was tragic. The first campaign ended with a hole in the bow, resulting from a torpedo attack by an American submarine. In October 1944, Japan's two largest battleships finally came into serious combat. In the Sibuyan Sea, they were attacked by American aircraft. Coincidentally, the enemy's main attack was on the Musashi. The ship sank after being hit by about 30 torpedoes and bombs. Together with the ship, its captain and more than a thousand crew members died.

On March 4, 2015, 70 years after the sinking, the Musashi was discovered by American millionaire Paul Allen. It is located in the Sibuyan Sea at a depth of one and a half kilometers. "Musashi" takes 6th place in the list of the largest battleships in the world.

Incredible but Soviet Union not a single super battleship was built. In 1938, the battleship "" was laid down. The length of the ship was to be 269 meters, and the displacement - 65 thousand tons. To the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the battleship was 19% complete. It was not possible to complete the ship, which could become one of the largest battleships in the world.

4. Wisconsin | Length 270 m

The American battleship "" is ranked 4th in the ranking of the largest battleships in the world. It was 270 meters long and had a displacement of 55,000 tons. He entered service in 1944. During World War II, he accompanied aircraft carrier groups and supported amphibious operations. Served during the Gulf War. The Wisconsin is one of the last battleships in the US Navy Reserve. Was decommissioned in 2006. Now the ship is in the parking lot in the city of Norfolk.

3. Iowa | Length 270 m

With a length of 270 meters and a displacement of 58,000 tons, it ranks third in the ranking of the largest battleships in the world. The ship entered service in 1943. During the Second World War, "Iowa" actively participated in combat operations. In 2012, the battleship was withdrawn from the fleet. Now the ship is in the port of Los Angeles as a museum.

2. New Jersey | Length 270.53 m

The second place in the ranking of the largest battleships in the world is occupied by the American ship "", or "Black Dragon". Its length is 270.53 meters. Refers to the Iowa-class battleships. Left the shipyard in 1942. The New Jersey is a true veteran of naval battles and the only ship that took part in the Vietnam War. Here he played the role of supporting the army. After 21 years of service, it was withdrawn from the fleet in 1991 and received the status of a museum. Now the ship is parked in the city of Camden.

1. Missouri | Length 271 m

The American battleship "" tops the list of the largest battleships in the world. It is interesting not only for its impressive size (the length of the ship is 271 meters), but also for the fact that it is the last American battleship. In addition, the Missouri went down in history due to the fact that the surrender of Japan was signed on board in September 1945.

The supership was launched in 1944. Its main task was to escort Pacific aircraft carrier formations. Participated in the war in the Persian Gulf, where he opened fire for the last time. In 1992, he was withdrawn from the US Navy. Since 1998, the Missouri has had the status of a museum ship. The parking lot of the legendary ship is located in Pearl Harbor. Being one of the most famous warships in the world, it has been featured in documentaries and feature films more than once.

High hopes were placed on heavy-duty ships. Characteristically, they never justified themselves. Here is a good example of the largest battleships ever built by man - the Japanese battleships "Musashi" and "Yamato". Both of them were defeated by the attack of American bombers, without having time to fire at the enemy ships from their main calibers. However, if they met in battle, the advantage would still be on the side of the American fleet, equipped by that time with ten battleships against two Japanese giants.

What else to see: