|
|
От
|
Ibuki
|
|
|
К
|
марат
|
|
|
Дата
|
03.10.2021 17:34:37
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
WWII; Танки;
|
|
Re: THE VULNERABILITY...
>И при этом зачем-то пишите, что Адмиралтейство умоляет правительство Британии заказать два линкора, несмотря на то, что уже доказано(на бумаге) преимущество авианосцев. Странные у вас методы.
>И при этом зачем-то пишите, что Адмиралтейство умоляет правительство Британии заказать два линкора, несмотря на то, что уже доказано(на бумаге) преимущество авианосцев. Странные у вас методы.
Не основательно доказано. Далее в том же источнике разносят самолетофилов в пух и прах:
Construction of certain auxiliary vessels for the Navy : hearing before the Committee on Naval Affairs, United States Senate, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, on S. 2193 ... May 4, 1937.
ARTICLE BY ADMIRAL OF DIVISION O. DI GIAMBERARDINO , ITALIAN NAVY , PUB LISHED IN THE GIORNALE D'ITALIA OF MARCH 12 , 1937 CONCLUSIONS
The following are my final conclusions in regard to airplane versus battleship warfare : The great modern warships react against air attack by intense large - caliber machine - gun fire creating around them an impenetrable zone . In order to give the reader an idea of the mass of this fire we can affirm that a modern cruiser can fire up to 7,000 bullets a minute . This obliges the plane to fly at high altitude . Besides the automatic guns there are on board several antiaircraft guns each of which can fire from 15 to 20 rounds a minute . These guns can fire a dis tance of well over 3,000 meters . A ship's reaction against planes at high altitudes is very strong , but not to be compared with that against low - flying planes . The reaction is in direct relation to the probability of the ship being hit and while it is less strong at distances over 3,000 meters , the plane's capacity for making direct hits from a high altitude is relatively much less . The modern antiaircraft fire - control centers enable accurate firing even against planes which are constantly changing direction and height . The firing is less accurate if the plane is performing acrobatics but in that case it becomes impossible for the plane to drop bombs . To reduce straight flying to a period of 15 seconds , considered sufficient for the bombs to be accurately aimed , is not only not practicable but entirely fantastic .
Nowadays the plane flies straight to the attack , attempting to reach the point , which is difficult to establish , from where the bombs may be dropped directly on the target . It must determine the deviation caused by the wind as exactly as possible , correct its effect on the course , measure its own speed , determine that of the enemy and in fact , carry out operations which require pot 15 seconds but several minutes of perfectly level flying . Furthermore , if the plane should lose time in getting into a straight flight it might pass over the bombing point and have to repeat the attack . The plane cannot therefore subordinate its fighting function , that is the possibility of dropping the bombs as accurately as possible , to a defensive maneuver . If it were to do this and render its attack less accurate by a maneuvered flight , it would offer an indirect but decided advantage to the enemy antiaircraft defense . Straight flying is essential for massed attacks in closed formation , in ac cordance with the tactics now approved by the Air Force , and improved aim is thus favored by the size of the target . The fundamental element of judgment is the very slight possibility of the plane of hitting a small target such as a ship from medium and high altitudes which has been demonstrated both in peace and in war . We have only to consider the experience of the Spanish civil war , in which both sides have attempted to bombard from the air ships which , besides having little or no protection , had very inefficient antiaircraft defense . It would have appeared certain that they would quickly be destroyed ; but on the contrary , in spite of repeated and powerful attacks at sea and in port — that is , with moving and stationary targets - only one , the Jaime I , was hit , while at anchor , in its least protected part , but was able to continue its journey from Malaga to Cartagena , where it was repaired , and after 15 or 20 days was again at sea supporting the " Red " attack on Majorca . All newspaper reports of the sinking of ships by air bombardment are there fore false . These meager results must be attributed not to the poor capacity of the aviators but to the generic practical difficulties of bombardment . This can be well understood by sailors , as there exists a similar disaccord at sea between theory and practice in regard to the firing of torpedoes , especially against targets maneuvering at high speed . A multiple torpedo attack may be effected by several units well equipped for the solution of the cinematic problem , but the theoretical certainty of hitting any target is belied by facts . In firing from the air the errors , unknown and imponderable factors which come into play , are far more numerous . The present minimum percentage of effective hits from the air are not accepted by the navies as definite data , and therefore modern construction takes great account of the new offense , greatly increasing antiaircraft defense , giving spe . cial protection to hulls , and building a horizontal plating which can resist the largest bombs . We repeat that about 20 years ago a German ship withstood nineteen 381 - mm shots weighing 900 kilograms each , as well as others of smaller caliber and one torpedo , and that now it is possible to build far more resistant ships . The largest air bombs have nothing like the destructive capacity of a 381 - mm projectile . Also , for underwater resistance , multiple hulls are used , while multiple - explosion torpedoes are merely a pretty fantasy which finds no credit with experts in self - propelling underwater arms .