World of Warships Soviet Battleship Line Proposal

Thanks to Katya for sending me the article.

Tier I: Orlan

Tier II: Petropavlovsk-class

Generic Pre-Dreadnought, very similar to Mikasa, however has turreted secondaries instead of casemate mounted. Armed with 4x 305mm guns, 12x 152mm guns, top speed 17 kts, armour: 254-406mm nickel steel.

Tier III: Andrei Pervozvanny-class

Another pre-dreadnought but this one is interesting as it has turreted 203mm secondaries (7 per side). Perhaps Wargaming could give these extra long range or maybe even the ability to be manually controlled. Armed with 4x 305mm guns, 14x 203mm guns, top speed 18.5 kts, armour 102-216mm KCA.

Tier IV: Gangut-class

Stock would be her WWI configuration, while upgraded would be her WWII configuration (Marat, October, Paris), armed with 12x 305mm guns, 16x 120mm guns, top speed of 24 kts, similar to Svietlana, becomes upgraded to Soviet configuration with improved AA.

Tier V: Imperatritsa Mariya-class

Improved Gangut design with increased armour and improved ROF on guns (up to 2.3 rpm), same armament of 12x 305mm, 20x 130mm guns with a top speed of 21 kts, armour up to 262.5mm of KCA.

Tier VI: Borodino-class battlecruiser (Also known as Izmail-class, named after the Battle of Izmail which took place in Southern Bessarabia)

Similar design to previous ships with same turret layout, however now has 12x 356mm guns in 4 triple turrets, secondary battery 24x 130mm guns and a top speed of 26.5 kts. Armour thickness is 237.5mm of KCA.

Tier VII: Kronshtadt-class battlecruiser

The first Soviet design in the tech tree, designed with input from Germany and the United States. Very similar to Gneisenau, due to also featuring 6x 380mm guns in the exact same turrets, due to the original triple 305mm turret design being incomplete top speed of 32 kts, armed with 6x 380mm guns, 8x 152mm guns, 8x 100mm DP guns. Top speed of 32 kts, armour thickness of 230-330mm of KCA.

Tier VIII: Stalingrad-class battlecruiser

Here we come to a very interesting design, Stalingrad is slightly closer to a heavy cruiser than a battlecruiser due to her thin armour and higher top speed, she will effectively act like a bigger Moskva. Armed with 9x 305mm guns which are a new design featuring a 950 m/s muzzle velocity and a ROF of 3.2 rpm, 12x 130mm DP guns, with a top speed of 35.5 kts and a powerful AA battery, her downside is that she only has 180mm of belt armour, however due to its design it should be easy to angle.

Tier IX: Sovetsky Soyuz-class

The classic design everyone knows, Sovetsky Soyuz, super battleship of the Soviet Union, even rivals the Yamato in size and actually features thicker armour. Armed with 9x high velocity 406mm main guns (substantially higher than Iowa’s) 12x 152mm guns, 12x 100mm DP guns, top speed of 28 kts and up to 420mm of KCA armour.

Tier X: “Super” Sovetsky Soyuz-class (430mm guns)

I’m afraid I have not been able to find much data on this ship but from what I have found out it appears to simply be the Sovetsky Soyuz but rearmed with 430mm main guns and improved AA armament. I would assume speed would drop by about ~1kt due to this, other than that it would be fairly similar to Sovetsky Soyuz.

Tier V premium: Paris Commune (Sevastopol) 1942 Modernization

The final modification of the Ganguts, Sevastopol featured improved armour, up to 225mm of KCA and torpedo bulges, as well as exceptionally powerful AA armament (the secondaries were reduced to 12x 120mm guns for this), and improved turret drives which increased her ROF from 2 to 2.3 rpm. These modifications reduced her top speed to 21.5 knots.

Tier II Premium: Battleship Potemkin

Included simply because she is very well known. Potemkin is effectively just a Mikasa with increased armour but a lower top speed of only 16 kts.

Tier VII Premium: Battleship Arkhangelsk (ex Royal Sovereign)

Arkhangelsk was originally the HMS Royal Sovereign, a Revenge-class battleship of the Royal Navy, however during the war she was given to the Soviets to make up for the fact that the Italian fleet could not be divided up at the time. She is effectively just a Warspite, but with improved AA, secondaries and she also has a pair of 533mm torpedo launchers.

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “World of Warships Soviet Battleship Line Proposal

  1. Oh WoW. Soviet Russia can into WoWs! We don’t have the Brit BB line, we don’t have Italian or French ships, but we’ll get instead WG’s R&D paper science fiction ships.
    Nice article though. Was a pleasure to read about these “¿what if?” projects.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Uh, it’s just a proposal, it’s not like we’re getting these ships, or that Russian battleships are coming soon. And many of the ships listed actually began construction, or were constructed. There’s only one paper ship, the tier 10.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. @Gasboy
        I don’t deny that many of those ships were started but I can bet u that Russian BBs will come in WoWs way before the British ones. What I mind is that Britannia has a long standing naval tradition and used tens of dreadnoughts and battleships, while Russia fielded like what, 2 max at a time?
        Many of us can’t wait to get their hands on King George V, Revenge, Royal Oak, Nelson and so on. Even Richelieu and Littorio. Everybody heard of them, ain’t that so?
        But instead we get… Gangut and Maryia, Stalingrad and even Scharnhorst re-skin all over again…
        And look how many of us here on EU server are playing Russian ships. ARP Nachi rings a bell?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’ve been waiting for the RN since the game was in alpha. And I doubt the Russian BBs will come first, Sub_Octavian stated that the RN battleships are in 3D modeling currently. It is possible for them to be ready this summer. I doubt the Russian ones are as far along. We’ll see the sub-branch of Russian destroyers first.

          Like

            1. Vanguard for tier 8, the 1939 proposal for the Lion class as tier 9, and the N3 or maybe L3 as tier 10. Obviously you may have to add fictional upgrades to account for war experience, mainly AA guns.

              Like

                1. Complain? The point is that the russian navy is known for its subs and missile cruisers, “digging” in “archives” to come up with ships to add is bad enough. Having them getting weird stats just because they’re russian is even worse imho. Paper proposals and shit drawn on napkins during lunch we get enough off in World of Tanks.

                  Like

                  1. Every single ship in my line was built or at least began construction with the exception of the tier X. And even that had many design studies done on it. I don’t see you complaining about the high tiered German Battleships, or the Zao, or the Izumo.

                    Like

            2. Tier 8 KGV with the proposed triple barreled 15 inch guns on the top hull

              Tier 9 Lion class

              Tier 10 L3/N3 design with the 18 inch guns that were proposed.

              Like

      2. Lol one paper ship? The Kronstadt was barely even being built. The T8 is a complete “Paper” ship designed to beat the Alaska, but sorry to say it was a fairytale. 950 M/S 305mm guns? LOL NOPE. Alaskas 305m were by far the best guns ever built at 305mm and designed for deck killing and were rated at 18k tons barrel pressure, this would have to be 27 tons barrel pressure which is simply insane. At 25k tons you get explosions, rapid barrel warping, superheating and magazine detonations etc in guns larger than a cruisers.

        This is the problem with Russian ships, they are so over the top its simply ridiculous to compare them to actual ships. Its like having a game where one side uses rifles and the other uses railguns and acts like it could have been that way.

        Also if the T9 had thicker armor than Yamato and 406mm guns why in the world is it T9? Just so that it can be super OP and on top of that have a super OP T10?

        This is not realistic at all. Moskva is already a BC in reality. Its a degunned BC but in game it gets guns more powerful than the Dunkirk which were 330mms. So it already is a BB basically.

        To sum it up, I like the idea, but fear another stupid OP line resembling the Nikolai. And when you compare these fairytales vs real ships that were amazing but actually had to operate without swapping barrels every 10 shots or rebuilding engines every time they needed to refuel, then they would need to be majorly rethought.

        All Ruski ballistics that use over 20k ton barrel pressures are crap. Any navy on earth would never use anything higher. Hell look at the actual ships the Ruskis built and youll see. MK, Chappy etc were not even close to these crazy numbers. Moskva in game should be 820 ish M/S tops for such a heavy round, and the 305mm that would do 840 m/s tops while still having a very short 150ish round barrel life.

        TheRus navy was far behind the US Navy in technology. Had much less exp building any ships than the Germans, Japanese or Brits, but for some reason can build the most OP ships ever created? So to make these this OP is insane. Ands the only way to balance super thick armor with laser BB guns is make them turn like drunk pigs and lack AA, and that isnt fun.

        Like

        1. You know I don’t think i’m ever going to bother writing an article again, because all anyone ever does is whine and complain. Imagine if I had done this as an Italian battleships proposal, there would be nowhere near as much whining. Its literally just because you see the word “russia” and have to complain.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I like Russian ships and appreciate your hard work. Im really not trying to whine just to whine like some of the others here. It is WG fault they make Ru ships so much better than was possible in RL it kind of made most people root against them.

            Like

          2. B-36
            Armor Piercing: 2,820 fps (860 mps)

            B-50
            Light HE: 3,346 fps (1,020 mps)
            Concrete piercing: 2,953 fps (900 mps)
            Armor Piercing: 2,953 fps (900 mps)

            The top is the real gun. The bottom is the dream gun. One is from real life and the other would have blown up. Just look how different it is 860 MPS vs 915 lol with literally no side effects…Because we all know physics is for pussies.

            EvenNaval weapons has a huge caveat.

            “3) Given the extremely high muzzle velocity and the lack of life extending enhancements like chromium plating, I cannot help but think that the actual barrel life of this gun would not have exceeded double digits.”

            USSR gun liners and barrels after WW2 were so far behind the US it wasnt even comprable. So the fact they could make a much better 305mm gun than the Alaska is fiction.

            Like

    2. Also FYI Royal Navy BBs are up next after new Soviet DDs (that were actual built ships). Don’t worry, you’ll get your British-flavored big manly boats pretty soon

      Like

      1. “Royal Navy BBs are up next after new Soviet DDs” – Source? I would like to see something official or a reputable leak before I can on the mother-of-all hype trains

        Like

  2. Arkhangelsk tier 7??? Really?
    1. The Revenge class were smaller slower Queen Elizabeth class
    2. improved secondarys? Same as a as built QE and the same guns as on the old A hull Kongo
    3. Torpedo tubes are below water line so
    they would not be added in the first place
    4. Improved AA yes would be slightly better than Warspite but not the same level as New Mexico or Colorado
    So to be honest she would not be competitive at tier 7 she fits tier 6 alot better

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Mutsu’s torpedoes are both below and above waterline and it the 2 tubes above waterline they are adding and since she would be a Russian premium basically a up tiered slow Warspite if she was tier 7. everything else is mostly where I would put them the only ship personally I would find difficult to balance would be Stalingrad

        Like

        1. Esp since its guns are from a dream world, a drunk dream world. 950 M/S at 305mm is just LOL. That is such a hot round it would crack the barrel instantly and probably super heat the turret and cook of the magazine. SHips liek the Zao shooting super light 203mm rounds were shooting slower and still it would have had a 50 shot lifespan at best.

          Also after WW2 everyone realized the US Navys doctrine of shooting for decks vs shooting side armor was so much more superior it wasnt even funny. Shotting Decks was 10x as easy to land killshots into the Mags of BB and CV`s, it also was far more accurate as you were essentially aiming down and would miss far far less.

          So the Ruskis would have done the exact same thing the US did and made rounds slower, but much heavier and denser. Or they could have kept these hot rounds going and these would be the most inaccurate guns in game.

          Like

            1. It was not field tested. It was only passed firing 4 rounds for QA to make sure it actually fired. Sorry but the numbers they put up are fantasies

              Like

            2. Actually the one that was a tested and proven was the shorter 305mm, not this exp one. So it was all guessing how much better it could be. But it wasnt even close.

              The B36 was widely tested. But the B50 was a 305mm/55 gun and the one you guys are talking about is the 305mm/62. So sorry but they are both paper. And the 305mm 50 only got a barrel made and as I said had it tested for cracks.

              Like

      2. Revenge is likely to be a tier 6 as well. The developers have said as much, somewhere in the great number of Q&A sessions and other talks they’ve given.

        Like

      3. A lot more small AA guns, sure, but other than that, no significant improvements, other than directors and such. HMS Warspite had torpedo tubes as well, but those weren’t implemented when she became a premium either, so I am not counting on them. Armour was woefully inferior as well, so Archangelsk would not stand a chance at tier VII against tier IX BBs. Even North Carolina would make mincemeat out of the poor thing. I haven’t checked, but if I recall correctly, her mountings were not improved either, meaning she was not able to fire at long range at all. Even the RN regarded the ‘R’ class battleships as inferior to the Queen Elizabeth class, hence none of them were ever upgraded with modern dual purpose secondaries, unlike HMS Valiant, for instance.

        Like

      4. The tubes on Royal Sovereign were submerged, and removed by the time she became Archangelsk.
        She started with 14 x 1 6″ + 2 x 1 3″ guns as built, but by the time you get to Archangelsk, she only has 8 x 1 6″ + 4 x 2 4″, the same as Warspite. Light AA is 2 octuple pom-poms (19.5dps each), 2 quad pom-poms (14dps each), 6 twin Oerlikons (6.167 dps each) & 10 single Oerlikons (3.667dps each). Hardly worth an extra tier.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. You can have a shell as big and heavy as you want, but if it’s not well designed, it just won’t penetrate as much armor as a smaller, lighter shell.

        Like

      2. Its all about shell design. Shells in RL ar not solid rounds. They are hard caps trying to break a hole in the armor for the explosives behind it to make it inside.

        This is why the whole “Velocity” craze WG has is stupid. And why the most advanced navies and most successful ships had great arcs.

        INRL high arc well designed shells do much better than old WW1 style HV flat weapons as Armor easily defeats those.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. A premium replacement for the OP Nikolai would be nice. Though I would prefer to see the Ekaterina Velikaya as a premium, as I understand she differed from the Imperatritsa Mariya-class by being slightly larger.

    Like

  4. “even rivals the Yamato”
    Yes, on paper anything could. Concerning mighty Russian navy, I vote for that minesweeper Petropavlovsk because of Cushima and maybe Gangut as a symbol of “advanced” Russian naval engineering. But for others, please do not annoy us with these until French, Italian and even Austro-Hungarian ships arrive.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s simply a line proposal, someone’s idea of a Russian battleship branch. It’s not like it’s official or anything. The French and Italians are coming, the French first according to one of the more recent Q&A sessions.

      No need to be grumpy at someone’s musings.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Its simply a proposal for something where there was nothing. I could only laugh at the Russian thinking about their greatness going to the degree that some paper shit was comparable to Yamato. Yes, there will be time to bring into life something past the Gangut era, but not today. Today we have a legion of real ships to add.

        Like

        1. Yeah, but that one ship you complain about is the only “paper” ship of the lot. Not sure what you’re complaining about. And again, it’s someone’s idea of a ship line. It’s not the official thing and it’s not an indication of what Wargaming is doing currently.

          Like

            1. I have a 25% progress in winning a national lottery. Yes, the first ticket failed, but I am fully convinced that at the end I will make it.

              Like

          1. Really? Please can you point me to some photos of tier VI and above? Armed and afloat? Or just afloat?
            Yes, this is indication, but indication for something every muzhik will jerk devil to have in its collection, so the way from this into the game is not so long as you assume.

            Like

    2. I did this to point out that the arguments AGAINST the soviets getting battleships are unfounded. And if you can show me full tier II-X or even III-X branches for French, Italian or even British Battleships then I will be happy to listen to your proposals. Until then stop complaining.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Italy can fill up to T10 a line of destroyer (Khabarovsk is a copy of the italian light cruiser Capitani Romani), up to T8 with build Cruiser and Battleships, and T9-10 projects, Moskva is an ansaldo design,Sovetsky Soyuz is based on the same design of the littorio class.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Sweden could fill a a Destroyer line too.
          + have touched up italian DD’s as premium/normal ship
          Psilander/Sella-class destroyer
          Romulus/Spica-class destroyer

          Halland-class destroyer could be tier 10, a bit nerfed tho.

          Cruiser/ Coastal Defense line I don’t really agree with, from the source:
          http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/8524-sweden-in-world-of-warships/page__p__146979#entry146979

          This Soviet BB line? okayish
          Gasboy’s link and the other link on the forum are possibilities too for eventual Russian BB’s.
          Most ships ain’t paper, but some are sadly ships never finished.

          Like

      2. That is an image of ships the devs have mentioned in Q&A sessions and other talks they’ve given. There’s an NA forum and EU forum mirror of the thread.

        http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1697-what-we-know-about-ships-updated-30112016/

        The British have enough battleships and battlecruisers to form a line of each. A few paper ships, but the lines are solid.

        The French and Italian BB lines aren’t as good as far as being full lines, however those two nations will likely get at least a cruiser and a destroyer line. Battleship lines are possible for both nations if you consider blueprint designs.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. UK: Dreadnought -> Orion -> Iron Duke -> QE -> Nelson -> KGV -> Lion (one of the early designs) -> Lion (one of the latest designs since the Brits were quite prolific)
        Italy: the very first dreadnought ever designed (back in 1902 and published in Jane’s Fighting Ships in 1903) -> Caio Duilio/Conte di Cavour as originally built -> Caio Duilio/Conte di Cavour as reconstructed -> Caracciolo -> BC 1930 -> Littorio -> U.P.41 -> (complicated)
        France: Courbet -> Bretagne -> Normandie -> Lyon/Strassbourg -> (don’t know on top of my head) -> Richelieu -> Alsace -> (complicated)

        Excluding the Italian line which I’m pretty certain the rest is a bit improvised

        Like

    3. “Annoy us”? Man, that’s exaggerating a lot. And you should keep in mind that 1. this is just a random proposal and 2. lines take an awful lot of time to plan.

      We’ve had proposals for British, French and Italian BBs for years, and many other trees. This won’t do us any harm and, in fact, is really interesting. If someone giving some ideas for a branch annoys you… Well, that’s your problem.

      Like

      1. Look to where the WOT is, constantly adding new and new paper shits, because they have to do that as there are almost no real vehicles left. There is no need to plague WOWS the same way, at least not at this time. So all these proposals for bringing someone’s wet dreams into life annoys me, especially with russian navy, whose strongest contibution to war effort was landing its sailors and sending them fighting at the trenches. And agree with me or not, this game is being developed by Russians, so it is not so hard to guess what will they think about all those magnificient ships with superior guns, armour, speed etc (because there is some drawing telling those stats). Remember Vasa, how was she strong on paper…

        Like

    1. For the most part, Wikipedia contains information on pretty much everything basic about the ships. If you want to look up gun characteristics, that’s more in depth searching but you can probably find it easily enough.

      Like

      1. I know I can do that. I was more interested on research they had done if any beyond a wiki skim if at all. Call fact scrutiny and curiosity.

        Like

        1. Infront of me i have the article author’s copy of ‘soviet warships of the second world war’ which she kindly lent me. This volume contributed for the ships in service

          Like

        2. If you’re interested in this topic, I can recommend Russian & Soviet battleships, by Stephen McLaughlin, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 2003. AFAIK it is the most recent English language source on this subject. It is based in part on sources in Russian, including at least some archive material.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’ve got a copy of “Stalin’s Ocean-going FleetBook” by Jürgen Rohwer. I know of Stephen McLaughlin but it’s outside of pricerange for me as most copys are in the way too much money range. I have emailed the man once and asked if you could show me where to get a copy. He replied the rpices were getting silly and prompted him to think (only a think mind you) of a reprint.

            Like

  5. Up to tier 5 i’m interested. Above that….nah. Looking at the Stalingrad, i’m pretty sure that it should have the same place as the Scharnhorst.

    Like

  6. As a historian, I have a two questions:

    -What are the sources you used? Especially for the tier X? In McLaughlin, various designs are discussed, but the illustration you use is for the Ansaldo UP.41 design (McLaughlin, p 364, Dulin&Garzke, p 309) which does not match your description. There were a few overly ambitious designs preceding the Sovetsky Soyuz class, the closest of which is the Gibbs & Cox design ‘A’ but that was a preliminary hybrid battleship/carrier design, with four twin turrets and it is not clear what armour it would have had. There were also designs for smaller battleships, which were to be lightly armoured but heavily armed ships after the war, most with 406 mm guns, but one with 457, but at the expense of armour and on a displacement of less than a Bismarck class battleship. So far I can’t find anything similar to what you describe. The best post-war design I can find, project 24, variant VIII, was only armoured against contemporary USN 16 inch shells and armed with 406 mm guns, so not more than a modernized and relatively modest Sovetsky Soyuz. Is there another source for this material that I am unaware of?
    -Why the Sovetsky Soyuz at tier IX? Its armour was poor, as they could not make cemented armour in the necessary thickness and had to use face hardened plates for anything of over 200 mm thickness which turned out to be brittle (McLaughlin p 387 and p 390), greatly reducing the resilience. Despite having more armour than Yamato, its quality was poor and it was wasted by not adhering to the All-or-nothing principle, extending the armoured belt forward and aft. It is telling that half the armour was rejected, it was not even suitable by Soviet standards. One ship was cancelled while building due to inferior quality of work, making me feel not very optimistic about their actual performance if they had been completed. Its guns were probably no better than those of North Carolina (Iowa and Montana had a different turret and gun), no radar as designed, no dual purpose secondary turrets. The 152 mm guns could be used against aircraft, but not effectively, as at high angles of elevation (and only up to 45 degrees) their ROF would be lower. They were also much slower than the Iowa class. Yes, I want the ship in game, but I think it would be a tier VIII at best. Even the postwar redesign, Project 24, variant VIII, would have been no match for an Iowa.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I was trying to keep paper projects to a minimum and going off others comments, I’m glad I did. I put Sovetsky Soyuz at tier IX despite her IRL flaws because in game those flaws would likely not be modeled, for example in WoT we don’t have the Panther breaking down every 5 minutes. I was lacking information on the tier X and so simply found what little information was available, And going off the given statistics, Sovetsky Soyuz fires shells that weigh 100kg less than the Iowa’s, but are fired at 70 m/s higher muzzle velocity. The sources I used include wikipedia, http://www.navweaps.com/, and the excellent book SOVIET WARSHIPS of The Second World War, by J. Meister. The tier X was pieced together from various sources. This was more just a baseline proposal I wrote, sort of like thinking aloud, and was really just to see if a Soviet/Russian battleship line was possible using Constructed ships.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks for the reply. I agree trees should have as few paper designs in them, personally I would much prefer branches to just skip what can’t be filled with a real ship. Sovetsky Soyuz and her sisters were at least under construction, so I’d be interested to see them in game, but I would not want them to be buffed to the point of ridiculousness. Look at USS Montana, she is basically a bigger Iowa, but doesn’t have super-strong armour. That is one of the few ships never built that I actually play. HMS Lion (1939) would be another. Anyway, I recommend Russian & Soviet battleships, by Stephen McLaughlin, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 2003, as a source on this subject. I’m sure you’d like it a lot. Dulin & Garzke are good too, but are a bit dated by now and only cover Sovetsky Soyuz plus very quickly a few other designs.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Girl do you have some strange need for alternating history according to your point of view? Already your first comparisson with Yamato kicked me out of chair. But Panthers breaking down every 5 minutes? Panthers had many flaws, but they were not different to other major tank designs in terms of their service duty. Remember for example T-34s and KVs in 1941, Churchills in 1942 etc.

        Like

        1. Panther transmission was stated to last 150 km/h maximum. Tiger II frequently broke down and got stuck in mud, Porsche Tiger overheated repeatedly, Jagdtiger and Maus were too heavy to cross bridges and frequently got bogged down, As did Ferdinand, And I compared Sovetsky Soyuz to Yamato as going off her stats she is bigger with thicker armour. If you would read my post I said she Rivaled Yamato in Size, obviously she is not a direct competitor which is why I placed her at tier IX. She was designed to completely outclass the Bismarck in all respects.

          Like

          1. Please not again. I believe 150 km/h is an excellent value for tank transmission. However please mind that a lifespan of the legendary V-2 diesel was between 150-250 engine hours, with the latter being considered extreme value.

            Like

              1. I am getting bored by your ignorance and supplying facts based upon your assumptions. By that “T-34 prototype running across the length of Russa without breaking down” you certainly mean the ride of the two A-34s from Kharkov to Moscow, with help of two Voroshilovets prime movers carrying maintenance team and spare parts? Do you know this was also done on roads, during peacetime, with maximal effort being put into make this demonstration run successful? Still one tank suffered clutch failure beyond possibility to be field-repaired, and much worse, the ride took life of Koshkin itself.
                Now some maths – 2000 km in 7 days means approx. 285 km per day. With assumed speed of 20-30 km/h this means roughly 10 to 15 hours of driving per day, maybe more. Again, for 7 days. So back to those engine hours…

                Like

  7. I highly dis-agree with this tree, some of the candidates are good, but other ships there are FAR BETTER choices for their place, most notable the tier 10 and the tier 8.
    The Heavy cruiser Stalingrad, with a historical reload of 20 seconds on her 12 inch guns does not fit in that spot in the slightest. She in my honest opinion should be a T10 cruiser of the inevitable 2nd russian cruiser tech tree.
    As for the tier 10, Project 24 would be a far better choice, (with her earlier proposals of course, her final accepted official design would struggle a bit at tier 10)

    Like

      1. You might want to read up on the fate of the RN battlecruisers during the Battle of Jutland. Jacky Fisher was wrong. Speed does not equal protection and especially not in WoWs. With their thin armour, they would not stand a chance, even against cruisers.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. The image of the tier X is UP.41 which technically has nothing in common with SS(with the twist of the latter having the Pugliese system while the former does not). Other than that I would perhaps put Projekt 21 at tier VIII, Projekt 24 at X and the rest seems about right. As the premiums are concerned Royal Sovereign is a tad too high in my opinion

    Like

    1. Forgot to say something about the tier III: she can’t stay there period. A pre-dread against proper dreads would destroyed fairly quickly. The heavy secondary armament, both in reality and ingame, means jack against ships with twice as many heavy guns on broadside.

      Like

  9. She’s comparable to Moskva as far as protection is concerned and she is a cruiser on steroids (like Alaska, B-65 and comparable designs), not exactly suited in a BB line (especially when there’s another project better suited). Besides Stalingrad is still sort of paper considering the design had some serious opposition and died with Iosif.

    Like

  10. Soviet/Russian BB’s.
    After this article and the forums links found here.
    I a bit more positive to a BB line.
    Carrier line is still a big NO tho.

    Like

  11. I know you didn’t say anything about Carriers :)
    Altho, a premium carrier might not be that impossible, if they do a projected one. “paper”
    BB’s, easily, no clue, but possible yes.
    Swedish DD line, that would be easier. Depending on gettting blueprints etc from archives.

    Like

  12. I’ll be honest with you, I’m not too impressed by the tree, one is because we know wargaming is never going to put a pre-dreadnought at tier III against other dreadnoughts, and tier VII is a battlecruiser rather then a battleship, and tier VIII again a battlecruiser, as well as too big a jump in gun size for wargaming as they want as consistent as possible increase in size as you go up the tiers.

    A Russian battleship like is likely to look more like:

    tier III: 1907 P.F. Beshkurchov design (5×2 305mm guns in a kaiser layout)
    tier IV: gangut
    tier V: Imperatristya Mariya
    tier VI: Borodino
    tier VII: 1914 I.G. Bubnov design (4×3 406mm guns in the typical Russian layout of the time, basically imagine a gagut better in every way)
    tier VIII: Project 21 (Soviet nelson-style battleship)
    tier IX: Sovetsky Soyuz
    tier X: project 24 (post war Sovetsky Soyuz

    Is there quite a bit of paper? Yes, but is it better laid out and progresses better? Also yes.

    Like

    1. Look at the other comments, look at the whining about “paper ships” when only one of these is a “paper ship”. I was constructing this line from ships which actually entered construction to try to prevent the whine and prove that it was possible.

      Like

      1. Yes it is possible, but many of the lines would be poorly laid out if they limited themselves to ships that were only built or under construction. People are simply going to have to suck it up and accept that paper designs are going to be needed for many of the nations. Even the US, IJN, and UK, nations with massive navies and numerous built ships, are going to need paper ships for lines. Examples such as the battlecruiser/fast battleship line for the US and IJN, and then several battleships, battlecruisers, and heavy cruisers for UK.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s