Jump to content
Server Restart - 30 October, 05:00 UTC Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
322 posts

Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier Design Studies from 1900 till 1949

 

It goes without saying that WOWS will see several of the USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies introduced into the game, probably around May in either 2021 or 2022.

 

This topic presents an overview of what little reliable data is available on Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies for the time frame of WOWS.

 

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had some Aircraft Carrier design studies.

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had not started actual construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

 

The Soviet Union had Aircraft Carrier design studies dating from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953.

The USSR regime had from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953 not started construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

 

Reliable data on the USSR Aircraft Carriers is hard to come by and reliable plans are even more rare still.

To my knowledge there is no reliable data on any USSR Carrier Aircraft designs.

 

It would be a long time before the USSR commissioned her first Carrier. In 1967 the USSR Helicopter Carrier MOSKWA was commissioned, becoming the first Carrier of the USSR.

 

During the time frame of WOWS, roughly from 1900 till 1953, there were various Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies, this topic will list those that have more or less reliably been identified. None of these seem to have been more than design studies, meaning none of them resulted in actual construction blueprints that were ever seriously considered for construction.

 

The USSR up till 1953 did have one Aircraft Carrier though, but it was not designed or built in the USSR.

 

Up till 1953 the only Aircraft Carrier that the USSR posessed was the German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which had been completed up till 95% by January 1943. After WW2 key German naval aviation facilites and the Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN, including her latest blueprints, fell into the hands of the USSR. The GRAF ZEPPELIN had however been thoroughly and severely sabotaged and subsequently scuttled by the German Navy. The USSR Navy at the direction of Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov ordered the GRAF ZEPPELIN raised and rudimentary repaired so she could be towed to Leningrad where she was to be fully repaired and completed so she could be commissioned and become the first Aircraft Carrier in the service of the USSR. The USSR had at that time, other than some drawings, no Aircraft Carrier technology whatsoever unlike Germany which had developed, built and tested all technology required for the GRAF ZEPPELIN class and her aircraft even before WW2 had started.

 

When USSR engineers had finally patched up and repainted the scuttled GRAF ZEPPELIN to the point that she could finally be towed to the USSR it was not to be because on Stalin's direct orders Admiral Kuznetsov was ignominiously removed from his post and in 1948 he, as well as several other USSR admirals were put on show trials by the USSR Naval Tribunal and all found "guilty". Admiral Kuznetsov was then criminalized, marginalized, demoted and ultimately humiliated, and the other USSR admirals received prison sentences of varying length. Kuznetsov's successor then had the only partially and rudimentary repaired GRAF ZEPPELIN towed to sea on Stalin's orders to be sunk by the USSR Air Force, Stalin's "Falcons". These however proved unable to do so after repeated air attacks and even aerial bombs pre-installed in the ship failed to do so, as a result the USSR Navy was finally ordered to sink her with torpedoes. As a result the USSR would have to wait until 1967 before she could commission her first Aircraft Carrier.

 

 


Conversion Project ADMIRAL LAZAREV

Design study date: 1909/1910
Displacement: 3,750 standard tons
Length: 80.2 meters
Beam: 12 meters
Draught: 5 meters
Propulsion: 1 expansion machine with 5 boilers
Power of propulsion: 2,000 HP
Speed: 10.5 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 5-8
Catapults: 1
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: yes
Building yard: the ironclad was built at Carr & Mac Pherson in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as ironclad on 29 May 1867
Launched: as ironclad on 21 September 1867
Commissioned: as ironclad in 1872


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the ironclad ADMIRAL LAZAREV.
The idea for conversion came from a Colonel in the Imperial Russian Army named Michael M. Konokotin.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

KZb8xJN.png

 

 


Conversion Project IZMAIL

Design study date: 1928
Displacement: 36,000 standard tons
Length: 228 meters
Beam: 29.9 meters
Draught: 9.4 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of Franco-Russian turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers
Power of propulsion: 66,000 HP
Speed: 26.5 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 2x 76 mm (2x1), up to 10 other Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes
Number of Aircraft: 75
Catapults: -
Hanger: 4
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 238-100 mm, deck 38 mm
Building yard: the Battlecruiser was laid down at the Baltic Yard in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as Battlecruiser on 19 December 1912
Launched: as Battlecruiser on 22 June 1915
Commissioned: -


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the incomplete Battlecruiser IZMAIL.
Several variants were examined.
One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island".
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

EthiWtr.png

 

zyBagiD.jpg

 

VhYqVRv.png

 

 


Conversion Project POLTAVA

Design study date: 1926
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 181 meters
Beam: 26.8 meters
Draught: 8.3 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of Parson turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers
Power of propulsion: 42,000 HP
Speed: 23 knots
knots/endurance: 1800 nautical miles at 30 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 2x 76 (2x1), up to 10 Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes
Number of Aircraft: 50
Catapults: -
Hanger: 4
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 250 mm, deck 100 mm
Building yard: the Battleship was laid down at the Admiralty Yard in in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as Battleship on 15 May 1912
Launched: as Battleship on 10 July 1911
Commissioned: as Battleship on 30 December 1914 (renamed FRUNZE on 7 January 1926)


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the dreadnought POLTAVA.
Several variants were examined.
One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island".
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

lnNdMyk.png

 

7WgdtSd.png

 

 


Conversion Project KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN)

Design study date: 1927
Displacement: 11,680 standard tons
Length: 149.9 meters
Beam: 17.4 meters
Draught: 7.6 meters
Propulsion: 2 steam engines
Power of propulsion: 1,100 HP
Speed: 15 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: as training ship 530
Armament: 16x 102 mm (8x2)
Number of Aircraft: 42
Catapults: -
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: -
Building yard: the training ship was laid down at the Howaldtswerke in Kiel (Germany)
Laid down: as training ship in 1908
Launched: as training ship in 1908
Commissioned: as training ship in 1909


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the training ship KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN).
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

Z5Mzziv.png

 

JaYWXqo.png

 

t29cpXe.jpg

 

aUL9aop.png

 

n6MHQDZ.png

 

 


Aircraft Carrier for the Shipbuilding Program

Design study date: 1938+
Displacement: 11,000 standard tons
Length: 180 meters
Beam: 20 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ? turbines
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 4,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: as training ship 530
Armament: 6-8x 130 mmm 8x 37 m
Number of Aircraft: 40-50
Catapults: ?
Hanger: yes
Aircraft Elevators: yes
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -

 

Project study, 2 were planned, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

YCfoaMx.png

 

 


Project 1058.1 Gibbs & Cox Design A

Design study date: November 1937
Displacement: 66,074 standard tons
Length: 304.8 meters
Beam: 36.7 meters
Draught: 10.46 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers
Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 457 mm (4x2), 28x 127 mm (14x2), 24x 28 mm, 10x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x2 457 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.
US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

mWPrqj0.png

 

 


Project 1058.2 Gibbs & Cox Design B

Design study date: July 1938
Displacement: 71,850 standard tons
Length: 306.32 meters
Beam: 36.73 meters
Draught: 10.46 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers
Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Complement: 2706
Armament: 12x 406 mm (4x3), 28x 12.7 mm (14x2), 32x 28 mm, 12x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x3 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.
US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

x9LsjUE.png

 

FWZs417.png

 

w7wmW0W.png

 

qaMqOMX.png

 

e3Jmx5H.png

 

 


Project 1058.3 Gibbs & Cox Design C

Design study date: July 1938
Displacement: 55,206 standard tons
Length: 257.56 meters
Beam: 35.05 meters
Draught: 10.16 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers
Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP
Speed: 31 knots
knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 10x 406 mm (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 20x 28 mm, 20x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 24 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.

US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

EiVjWcx.png

 

GsQ0Qrv.png

 

 

 

Project 1058.4 Gibbs & Cox Design D

Design study date: March 1939
Displacement: 45,000 standard tons
Length: 257.56 meters
Beam: 34.95 meters
Draught: 10.16 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers
Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP
Speed: 31 knots
knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots
Complement: 2010
Armament: 10x 406 (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 16x 28 mm (4x4), 10x 12.7 mm (10x1)
Number of Aircraft: 4
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 330-178 mm, deck main 121+28, deck lower 44-32
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.

 

Project study, none were laid down.
This is the FINAL Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.

US government officials finally also vetoed this design because the USSR had invaded and occupied more than half of Poland in 1939 (and also in 1919/1920 but were defeated then) and then also invaded Finland in 1939.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

YCfoaMx.png

 

 


Icebreaker-Carrier KIROV

Design study date: 1936
Displacement: 8,300 standard tons
Length: 110 meters
Beam: 21 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 4
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

LDdOHLe.png

 

 


Project 71a

Design study date: 1936
Displacement: 13,000 standard tons
Length: 191 meters
Beam: 17.7 meters
Draught: 6.3 meters
Propulsion: 2 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers
Power of propulsion: 130,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2) initial design replaced in final design by 8x 100 mm (8x1), 16x 37 mm (4x4), ?x 12.2 mm
Number of Aircraft: 30-45
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
Based on the hull of the Light Cruiser Project 68, better known as the CHAPAEV-class.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

BN71T7o.png

 

IdbUens.png

 

R1RXMfY.png

 

DFEhAhM.jpg

 

 

 

Project 71b

Design study date: 1937
Displacement: 38,600 standard tons
Length: 248 meters
Beam: 31.4 meters
Draught: 9.1 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers
Power of propulsion: 231,000 HP
Speed: 33 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 32x 37 mm (8x4), ?x 12.2 mm
Number of Aircraft: 70
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 2
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 225 mm, deck 87.5 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 20 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT
After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

Mf07yxV.png

 

 

Project 72

Design study date: 1942/1943
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 224 meters
Beam: 27.9 meters
Draught: 8.4 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of turbines
Power of propulsion: 144,000 HP
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: 2,000
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 16x 87 mm (8x2), 24x 37 mm (12x2), 48x 23 mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 60
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
The design has some superficial similarities with the USA Carrier YORKTOWN.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

CZmH7Vk.png

 

J1P9qsG.png

 

N7RycqX.png

 

VejHfZr.png

 

 

IjU1JsW.png

 

vCDbnpo.png

 

khCNI2F.png

 

 

 

ZKB-17

Design study date: November 1944+
Displacement: 51,000 standard tons
Length: 280 meters
Beam: 32 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 32 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 152 mm (4x2), 24x100 mm (12x2), ?x 23 mm
Number of Aircraft: 100
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
The design made use of the 1936 blueprints of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN.
The Project was a study made by Lieutenant Kostromitinov, a student of naval architechture at the Soviet Naval Academy.
The Soviet Naval Academy during WWII had been moved from Leningrad (present day Saint Petersburg) to Samarkand in Asia.
The USSR had requested and received the plans of the GRAF ZEPPELIN as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

This Carrier design study is mostly based on the GRAF ZEPPELIN design.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

yJsSbIu.png

 

o8fRtI4.png

 

bS0SRDM.jpg

 

1PyoMmT.jpg

 

 

 

Project 72 II-B

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 34,400 standard tons
Length: 273 meters
Beam: 35.5 meters
Draught: 8.7 meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: 2300
Armament: 24x130 mm (12x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 62
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

hM4RyY1.png

 

 


Project 72-III-M

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 242 meters
Beam: 32.5 meters
Draught: 7.5 meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: 2000
Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 30
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

08LRZ06.png

 

 

 

"Squadron Carrier"

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: ? standard tons
Length: ? meters
Beam: ? meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: 3,000 nautical miles at 18 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 30-35
Catapults: ?
Hanger: ?
Aircraft Elevators: ?
Armor: belt ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
After the cancellation of Project 72 that design was used as a basis for a new design called "Squadron Carrier".

Little if any reliable data is available on this design study.
Purportedly the main role of the "Squadron Carrier" would have been to support amphibious operations.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

OAVuxyy.png

 

 


Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 33,800 standard tons
Length: 260 meters
Beam: 30 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 32 knots
knots/endurance: 6,900 nautical miles at 18 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 32x 45 mm (8x4), 32x 25mm (16x2)
Number of Aircraft: 76
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 2
Aircraft Elevators: 3
Armor: belt 120 mm, flight deck 50 mm, hangar deck 50 mm, armoured deck 90 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT
The KRONSHTADT was just over 10% complete at the start of the German-USSR war in 1941.
After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV.
This post-1945 design used the post-1936 plans of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which were purloined when the USSR occupied Germany.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

7TD1gQG.png

 

ARJK9l9.png

 

kwQmsMk.png

 

yVRywFF.jpg

 

 


"24,000 tons Carrier"

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 24,000 standard tons
Length: 240 meters
Beam: 22.5 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: ? nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 50
Catapults: ?
Hanger: ?
Aircraft Elevators: ?
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

XEdIJEY.png

  • Cool 21
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,253 posts
9,425 battles

So the TL;DR is, there are enough designs for an entire tree of hybrid carriers with BB guns for secondaries? Niiiiiiice... :cap_cool:

 

I had no idea the Soviets had this many design studies. Great job on this post.

 

I kind of want to see these, so long as we see the French CV tree first. If only to see the epic sh*tstorm among the HURR DURR RUSSIAN BIAS!!?? crowd.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
13 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Yep, exactly what the game needs - more SUPERIOR USSR paper ships ^^

 Corrected that for you Comrade.

:Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
368 posts
2,116 battles

While I love the amount of detail and research that went into this I have to say PLEASE: (WarHammer themed for upcoming event)

Cease and f****** desist | If The Emperor Had A Text To Speech ...

 

Before you give WarGaming any ideas regarding Soviet CV's... We all know that if WarGaming adds them they will have freaking Death Rays rather than rockets and Soviet patented 120 megaton thermo nukes from glorious 1932 Russian engineering rather than torpedoes because Mother Russia demands (demmaaaannnndddssss 0_0)

 

Hell the tier 6 fighter will probably be:

 

New Russian Su-57 Stealth Fighter Crashes During Tests - The ...

 

Because as we all know Russia single-handedly saved the world from those weak, childish Germans during WW2 with their inferior technology as accurately represented in WarGamings products when compared to glorious, stronk soviet technobable (did you know they invented the jet engine... and the atomic bomb... and the tank... and the Earth... and you, it's true comrade, WarGaming said so)

 

:Smile_trollface:

 

(seriously though, nice detail that must have taken some digging to find)

 

Joking BTW before anyone kicks off.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
393 posts
10,669 battles

Unfortunately, these designs will all become Farce reworked CVs, in which case, I will only have the T4 entrant, simply to terrorize T3/T4 players :cap_like:.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,627 posts
13,904 battles
2 hours ago, jss78 said:

an entire tree of hybrid carriers with BB guns for secondaries?

Manly CVs? I'm liking the sound of that; GZ is a promising start, but I feel there is far too much emphasis on the planes, and not enough emphasis on the dakka...

 

Good work with the original post, @Widar_Thule - very interesting.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
299 posts
5,308 battles

Great post, thank you! 

 

My takeaway:

 

1. Had the USSR built any of these projects, it would probably have left port and promptly sunk under its own imbalanced weight.

 

2. MORE than enough projects for two lines of glorious Russian CVs raining fiery stalinium death on everything.

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
1,584 posts
Vor 5 Stunden, jss78 sagte:

I had no idea the Soviets had this many design studies.

I am going out on a limb and guess that the paper they used to design warships outweights the steel they used to build warships. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,495 posts
18,961 battles
6 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Yep, exactly what the game needs - more russian paper ships ^^

 

6 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

 Corrected that for you Comrade.

:Smile_trollface:

That’s why it is important to emphasize the ‘Legends’ bit in Naval Legends. 

58 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

I am going out on a limb and guess that the paper they used to design warships outweights the steel they used to build warships. :Smile-_tongue:

The truth in this line outweighs both the paper and the steel used in Russian combat ship building! 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,548 posts
7,182 battles

It's a major troll post. :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface: Don't take it seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,196 posts
9,087 battles
8 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

Project 1058.2 Gibbs & Cox Design B 1930s (74,000 standard tons, length 306 meters, beam 36.73 meters)
Aircraft: 36
Speed: 34 knots
Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x3 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.
US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

x9LsjUE.png

 

FWZs417.png

 

How to make Pobeda even more balans: Add flight deck!

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
393 posts
10,669 battles

Where did you find all these designs, Widar_Thule? What is your source?

I am aware that the USSR had a few CV plans - check out the publication 'Stalin's Carrier Plans'

1) First plan was for the Izmail (which was never built) to be converted to a CV - idea &/or hull scrapped in 1931.

2) Frunze/Poltava ship plan for a CV conversion (did not happen ofc).

3) Project 71 - a plan for two 13,000 ton Chapayev type CVs w 45 plane complement (15 F/30 TBs).

4) Project 72 - a plan for an Essex type CV from the US (never even 'marketed' to the Americans).

5) Project 69AV - a 1945 plan to convert the Kronstadt to a CV (never implemented).

Stalin was not a fan of CVs, he did prefer BBs as the dominant naval ship class.

So, sure, there's probably enough paper designs to make up a passable Ru CV line, however fanciful it may be.

 Hence, you know WG will, therefore, have a Ru CV line eventually. This is inevitable  :cap_haloween: (says Dktr 'Ivansteinov').

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,038 posts
11,833 battles
8 hours ago, jss78 said:

I had no idea the Soviets had this many design studies.

I suppose when uncle Stalin says "I want new toys to play with" do start designing stuff without question, otherwise you might win one way ticket to gulag hotel:cap_cool:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
1,584 posts
Vor 25 Minuten, Bunny_Lover_Kallen sagte:

How to make Pobeda even more balans: Add flight deck!

Bright idea to store all that aviation fuel and aircraft ordnance on a battleship that is - in contrast to every CV outside of WoWs - designed to move into gunfire range... :Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,196 posts
9,087 battles
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

I suppose when uncle Stalin says "I want new toys to play with" do start designing stuff without question, otherwise you might win one way ticket to gulag hotel:cap_cool:

More like, if you have not much of an idea how to warship, have no limitations imposed by treaties and have almost no possibility to see the ship constructed, you can make sketches all day long for all kinds of crap, because why not? Gotta justify your job. In a country like the US or Japan, you'd also see a lot of designs, but often there are clearer design requirements, there's way more established approaches based on previous experiences (and less experimenting with things you never get to test and verify) and with treaty limitations, no reason to design a whole lot.

 

Like, when the IJN decided it wanted a new cruiser class that would fit into the treaty, but be covert heavy cruisers, that meant pretty clear requirements as to what the ship should be and what they would go for. Mogami-class would draw from many lessons learned from previous cruisers, use propulsion arrangements and armaments layouts that were mostly already settled on (5x2 203 mm option meant 5x turret layout was kind of the minimum they'd settle for to retain their qualitative edge) and the tonnage limit they wouldn't keep, but still had to observe on paper, so radical experimenting with stuff that would add weight was out of question. Then it gets built and the IJN has its heavy cruisers and doesn't need a new one for some time.

 

Meanwhile in the USSR, noone has any prior experience, so you get a handful lulzy designs that spawn more lulzy derrivatives, as they never build anything, so designers can just redesign things once they realise that something might be a bad idea or just think they could do better or want to reinvent the cruiser class. Nothing limits these plans, as the Soviet Union has no treaties, just the intention to build ships and thus the Navy has a need for new ships that won't be filled for the longest time. And you cannot learn lessons on modern naval design when most of your navy dates from pre-WWI.

6 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Bright idea to store all that aviation fuel and aircraft ordnance on a battleship that is - in contrast to every CV outside of WoWs - designed to move into gunfire range... :Smile_popcorn:

Not all ideas are wise. Worth noting though that there existed other aviation battleships and aviation cruisers (which weren't terribly effective), so the Soviets weren't the sole folks to come up with this idea.

 

Also, in WoWS, it wouldn't matter.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,929 posts
16,182 battles

I can't see why there wouldn't be Soviet Carriers in some form, given that instructions for "how to make a carrier" are largely:

 

a) make/find a hull

b) take all the stuff off the top

c) if you have to have some stuff on the top, put it to the right hand side*

d) find some planes which don't need a long takeoff

e) go sink things

 

And big gun secondaries are not too much of a problem. Didn't the Lexington start with 8 inch secondaries? 

 

Most interesting thing for me would be the planes. Naval versions of the IL-2 Sturmovik would be tough cookies...

 

Don't believe me?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangamon-class_escort_carrier - made from Cimarron class oilers (we've all sunk a few of those in this game...)

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,038 posts
11,833 battles
2 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

And big gun secondaries are not too much of a problem. Didn't the Lexington start with 8 inch secondaries?

Yep. Tier 6 Saratoga with 8x203 secondaries when

 

2 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Most interesting thing for me would be the planes. Naval versions of the IL-2 Sturmovik would be tough cookies...

So, FDR is test bed for navalized Sturmoviks:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,929 posts
16,182 battles
3 minutes ago, Panocek said:

So, FDR is test bed for navalized Sturmoviks:cap_hmm:

 It's a bit like the German carriers. With no service history and famous names to draw on, the ships themselves are almost irrelevant. The planes have to be interesting. (And I bet the Soviet ones get Mig-15s). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
393 posts
10,669 battles
50 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Where did you find all these designs, Widar_Thule? What is your source?

I am aware that the USSR had a few CV plans - check out the publication 'Stalin's Carrier Plans'

1) First plan was for the Izmail (which was never built) to be converted to a CV - idea &/or hull scrapped in 1931.

2) Frunze/Poltava ship plan for a CV conversion (did not happen ofc).

3) Project 71 - a plan for two 13,000 ton Chapayev type CVs w 45 plane complement (15 F/30 TBs).

4) Project 72 - a plan for an Essex type CV from the US (never even 'marketed' to the Americans).

5) Project 69AV - a 1945 plan to convert the Kronstadt to a CV (never implemented).

Stalin was not a fan of CVs, he did prefer BBs as the dominant naval ship class.

So, sure, there's probably enough paper designs to make up a passable Ru CV line, however fanciful it may be.

 Hence, you know WG will, therefore, have a Ru CV line eventually. This is inevitable  :cap_haloween: (says Dktr 'Ivansteinov').

 

fyi, repeated as the 5 numbered points are actual history of early USSR CV designs during Stalin's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
299 posts
5,308 battles
3 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

I am going out on a limb and guess that the paper they used to design warships outweights the steel they used to build warships. :Smile-_tongue:

As long as you're aware that the limb leads straight to GULAG!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NECRO]
Players
1,584 posts
Gerade eben, Bindolaf_Werebane sagte:

As long as you're aware that the limb leads straight to GULAG!

I have by far exceeded my life expectancy already, so I would consider this to be another bonus level! :Smile_playing:

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LADA]
Players
569 posts
8,803 battles

All very good - I believe I've visited the very same source of naval archives from whence these RU CVs were sourced.

 

Quite a few interesting designs but it does require you to consume vast amounts of alcohol, anti-freeze, screenwash and maybe a touch of rocket fuel. THEN you can unearth designs like this.....

9.thumb.png.b204ba9fed3158febb9739764b78c9b7.png

 

Displacement is a lot. Armour is a lot. Hell, if this had been built it would HaVe BeEn thE BesT. Hiccup. *Sound of head slumping into keyboard.*

  • Funny 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,760 posts
1 hour ago, Gvozdika said:

All very good - I believe I've visited the very same source of naval archives from whence these RU CVs were sourced.

 

Quite a few interesting designs but it does require you to consume vast amounts of alcohol, anti-freeze, screenwash and maybe a touch of rocket fuel. THEN you can unearth designs like this.....

9.thumb.png.b204ba9fed3158febb9739764b78c9b7.png

 

Displacement is a lot. Armour is a lot. Hell, if this had been built it would HaVe BeEn thE BesT. Hiccup. *Sound of head slumping into keyboard.*

 

No problem, Comrade! We can make it a submersible. :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,971 posts
12,852 battles

To all the naysayers there is actual photographic evidence of the Soviet CV capabilities.

 

Spoiler

478667164_USSRCVPlane.jpg.1d051c4e30cdfcc948e83efc6a032609.jpg

 

259233321_USSRCV.jpg.183e1a143e5d0f4faade6c3aa1e1812f.jpg

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×