Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Major_Damage225

Uber OP russian BB study from 1914

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

This was the ultimate BB study done in June 1914 by the Russo-Baltic SY in Revel. It was never seriously considered for production and was more of a design study to see if it can be done. It was considered to be too big for the Baltic Sea operations.

Data (all in metric units):
Displacement - 45,000 tons
Full length - 265.0 m
Full width - 34.4 m
Draft - 9.15 m
Armaments:
Sixteen 16"/45
Twenty four 150mm/52
Torpedo tubes:
Four 450mm
Armour: See drawings
Engines: 11 universal boilers, 16 oil boilers, 119,452 h.p.
Speed - up to 30 knots 

 

irnultimateartistimpression.jpg.f7f9ec59060412f98a816db5b40c7a34.jpg

 

irnultimate.thumb.jpg.a07147299900d9c8b4ad6b31ac40b41a.jpg

 

irnultimatecrosssection.thumb.jpg.7cfad2767e0873bf11fd188cacfbe25d.jpg

 

All info found on this ship was posted by senior_kickass on Spacebattles forum. 

 

Imagine this thing in wows :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Get rid of that superstructure and we can start talking rubels.

 

Depending on the price, the top bundle has a jacuzzy option aswell comrade XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Get rid of that superstructure and we can start talking rubels.

So basically we want a USS Monitor with the firepower of two Nagatos?

Seems reasonable. :cap_like:

 

8 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

Depending on the price, the top bundle has a jacuzzy option aswell XD

1) *Jacuzzi

2) Jacuzzi is a brand, you mean hot tub.

The more you know ~≈☆

 

C'mon WG, we all know you guys want to make this the TX RU BB.

Edited by Captain_LOZFFVII
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

So basically we want a USS Monitor with the firepower of two Nagatos?

Seems reasonable. :cap_like:

 

1) *Jacuzzi

2) Jacuzzi is a brand, you mean hot tub.

The more you know ~≈☆

 

I stand corrected :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lafeel   

And here I thought that one with 12 (3 quads) 406mm guns and 18 torpedo tubes was as crazy as they got..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, lafeel said:

And here I thought that one with 12 (3 quads) 406mm guns and 18 torpedo tubes was as crazy as they got..

 

There is no limit to crazy or vodka when it comes to russian :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lafeel   
Just now, Major_Damage225 said:

 

 

There is no limit to crazy or vodka when it comes to russian :Smile_teethhappy:

Way too big to cross the Danish Belts which is the primary reason she never left the drawing board.

 

Even that ship I mentioned above was extremely iffy in that regard, as designed. And nb, this was a design requirement, that they have relatively shallow draft (for their displacement) so they could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make me wonder what parts of the design they sacrificed to fit all that onto a hull of that size, or whether the designers were simply hopelessly optimistic with how things could be made. Compared to the Admiral Class, it has not much less engine power, similar armour, a massively increased armament and that is all on a similar displacement using older technology - even with 1930s technology those specs would be impossible on a ship of that size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lafeel   
1 minute ago, RamirezKurita said:

It does make me wonder what parts of the design they sacrificed to fit all that onto a hull of that size, or whether the designers were simply hopelessly optimistic with how things could be made. Compared to the Admiral Class, it has not much less engine power, similar armour, a massively increased armament and that is all on a similar displacement using older technology - even with 1930s technology those specs would be impossible on a ship of that size.

In short, nothing. At least not on paper. Remember this one never even came close to leaving the drawing board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El2aZeR   
37 minutes ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

I can see nothing troubling or disconcerning in placing multiple magazines right next to the boiler rooms:cap_tea:

 

Shhhh comrade, do not question supreme Russian engineering, else you get sent to gulag!

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strangely reminds me of Ferdinando Cassone.
They have nothing alike... appart from being ultra-large battleships designs from the 191X with a totally unrealistic speed for such design for the time.

 

Naval engineers were pretty much all drunk in the 191X. The collection of the stupidest most unrealistic designs come mostly from this era. Wasn't Incomparable from 1915 ? And the Tillman Battleships, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnirf   

There are plenty of designs in the McLaughlins book Russian and Soviet Battleships that are described , including this probably. 

I would like the Torp battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Major_Damage225 said:

This was the ultimate BB study done in June 1914 by the Russo-Baltic SY in Revel. It was never seriously considered for production and was more of a design study to see if it can be done. It was considered to be too big for the Baltic Sea operations.

Data (all in metric units):
Displacement - 45,000 tons
Full length - 265.0 m
Full width - 34.4 m
Draft - 9.15 m
Armaments:
Sixteen 16"/45
Twenty four 150mm/52
Torpedo tubes:
Four 450mm
Armour: See drawings
Engines: 11 universal boilers, 16 oil boilers, 119,452 h.p.
Speed - up to 30 knots 

 

irnultimateartistimpression.jpg.f7f9ec59060412f98a816db5b40c7a34.jpg

 

irnultimate.thumb.jpg.a07147299900d9c8b4ad6b31ac40b41a.jpg

 

irnultimatecrosssection.thumb.jpg.7cfad2767e0873bf11fd188cacfbe25d.jpg

 

All info found on this ship was posted by senior_kickass on Spacebattles forum. 

 

Imagine this thing in wows :Smile_teethhappy:

 

I think you spoiled WG's surprise.... by revealing the Russian T3 bottlesheep before release....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mariouus   
19 hours ago, lafeel said:

Way too big to cross the Danish Belts which is the primary reason she never left the drawing board.

 

 

Well. Primary reason why it did not left drawing board, was because this ship is made-up. And whose ever drawing board it was, had nothing to do with 1914.

 

There are some obvious reasons..

 

1.Armor is weird. Russia spent a lot of time and money do find good armor protection for their dreadnoughts. On the picture, we have exact layout, but wrong way around. Seeing 5.cm decapping plate infront of main armor is fancy, but not that expected for 1914. Also 250mm flat turret roofs are unnecessary, not only, pre-Pearl Harbor no-body would have seen any threat do justify it. Who ever designed this ship, saw aircraft as credible threat for BB, whenever this happened, probably not in 1914.

 

2. 27.boilers, 120000shp and propelling 265.m long "fat" ship to 30.kn. Not going do happen. In 1914 anyway. For ship this size 150000shp is minimum.

 

3.Minimum displacement for 265.m long ship, with 16 16.inch guns and decent armor is around 55000.t or rather 60000.t not 45000.t.

 

4. Last, but not least. On schematic, we see boiler symbols, what are obviously Admirality cilindrical waterdrum boilers, what were not even envisione in 1914. It is interwar design.

 

Most likely those ships are similar to K1000 Battleship. Very little to do with reality. 

 

But I recon, this will not stop WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lafeel   
56 minutes ago, mariouus said:

 

Well. Primary reason why it did not left drawing board, was because this ship is made-up. And whose ever drawing board it was, had nothing to do with 1914.

 

There are some obvious reasons..

 

1.Armor is weird. Russia spent a lot of time and money do find good armor protection for their dreadnoughts. On the picture, we have exact layout, but wrong way around. Seeing 5.cm decapping plate infront of main armor is fancy, but not that expected for 1914. Also 250mm flat turret roofs are unnecessary, not only, pre-Pearl Harbor no-body would have seen any threat do justify it. Who ever designed this ship, saw aircraft as credible threat for BB, whenever this happened, probably not in 1914.

 

2. 27.boilers, 120000shp and propelling 265.m long "fat" ship to 30.kn. Not going do happen. In 1914 anyway. For ship this size 150000shp is minimum.

 

3.Minimum displacement for 265.m long ship, with 16 16.inch guns and decent armor is around 55000.t or rather 60000.t not 45000.t.

 

4. Last, but not least. On schematic, we see boiler symbols, what are obviously Admirality cilindrical waterdrum boilers, what were not even envisione in 1914. It is interwar design.

 

Most likely those ships are similar to K1000 Battleship. Very little to do with reality. 

 

But I recon, this will not stop WG.

Actually it's not made up at all. This monstrosity is very much a real design, albeit a one that had almost no chance of being completed as designed.

 

And before you accuse me of talking out of my @ss here, my source is Russian and Soviet Battleships By Stephen Mclaughlin, pretty much THE English source on this sort of thing, and it includes the pictures just as you see there. Finally, your point on the Admiralty boilers is simply mistaken, they were used in several designs pre war, including, notably, the Sevastopol (usually referred to as the Gangut) class battleships.

 

Call her ambitious, sure. Call her impossible to turn from a paper design into a working battleship, and I'd agree. But call her fake and we have a problem.

 

Also the Russians were in fact not satisfied with the armour protection on their dreadnoughts. Gunnery tests on the stricken battleship Chesna in 1913 showed that the armour was in fact very vulnerable to ap shells. Which is why you saw a steady increase in the armor figures involved in every design that came after the Sevastopol class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mariouus   
1 minute ago, lafeel said:

Finally, your point on the Admiralty boilers is simply mistaken, they were used in several designs pre war, including, notably, the Sevastopol (usually referred to as the Gangut) class battleships.

Not really. There were several boilers nicknamed Admirality type, including some pre-dating turbines quite a bit. I am just saying, this symbol used on that armor layout is symbol for cilindrical waterdrum boiler, what is quite a bit younger than stated design.

 

Here is boiler symbol for Gangut era. Note waterdrum shape on given pic (red circle)

icnz1e.jpg

 

The fact is. If somebodys claims something in a book, does not mean it is true. Question what you have do ask is that, could a ship 265 meters long and 34 meters wide attain 30. knots using 1914 propulsion and 120000shp? Would, in 1914, 11 coal/oil firing and 16 oil firing boiler generate 120000shp? Is there any way, that ship with displayed armor scheme, arnament and size could only displace 45000t? If answer to all those question is NO. And you add utterly unrealistical armor-layout for 1914. There is not many conclusions there can be. 

 

It is defenetly not a design, it is a fantasy. Now, given the armor-layout it probably is not a fantasy dating 1914.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mariouus   
1 hour ago, lafeel said:

And before you accuse me of talking out of my @ss here, my source is Russian and Soviet Battleships By Stephen Mclaughlin, pretty much THE English source on this sort of thing, and it includes the pictures just as you see there.

Do not get me wrong. I am not accusing you in anything. Russian sources sometimes tend do be, how do say it, extravagant. It is lot to do with Soviet era, at that time everything Russia or Soviets did had do be faster, stronger and make a bigger bang than anything else. Hell, they sayed that Lada (car) was beautiful, fast, relaiable and safe- and it just wasnt any of those things.

 

If this ship would have been built. It would have had displacement of roughtly 60000.t and speed of 22-25.kn from roughtly 75000shp. It would have been sort of decently armored, but ineffecently armored for WWI. It would have been bad gun platform, while its beam is rather wide, it is insufficent for 4X16.inch turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lafeel   
Just now, mariouus said:

Do not get me wrong. I am not accusing you in anything. Russian sources sometimes tend do be, how do say it, extravagant. It is lot to do with Soviet era, at that time everything Russia or Soviets did had do be faster, stronger and make a bigger bang than anything else. Hell, they sayed that Lada (car) was beautiful, fast, relaiable and safe- and it just wasnt any of those things.

 

If this ship would have been built. It would have had displacement of roughtly 60000.t and speed of 22-25.kn from roughtly 75000shp. It would have been sort of decently armored, but ineffecently armored for WWI. It would have been bad gun platform, while its beam is rather wide, it is insufficent for 4X16.inch turret.

There is no denying that. That still does not make her a made up or a fake design.

 

I am sure the designers over at the Russo-Baltic Shipbuilding and Mechanical Society of Reval (Tallin, Estonia) would not be amused by us calling their design fake 102 years after they worked on it.

 

As a side note, this is the one and only design I have seen from this firm, and you can guess why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mariouus   
55 minutes ago, lafeel said:

There is no denying that. That still does not make her a made up or a fake design.

 

I am sure the designers over at the Russo-Baltic Shipbuilding and Mechanical Society of Reval (Tallin, Estonia) would not be amused by us calling their design fake 102 years after they worked on it.

 

As a side note, this is the one and only design I have seen from this firm, and you can guess why.

If specification is wildly off from realistlicly achievable it is fantasy.

 

I do not think they would mind. Firstly, I am rather sure, that they did not had anything to do with this stated design. Secondly "Vene-Balti Laevaehituse ja Mehaanika Aktsiaseltsi Tallinna Laevaehitustehas" was only one year old in June 1914, what further reinforces my opinion that it is not 1914 design. 

 

But one (or two, dependes how you look at it) Wows ship -Svetlana or Krasnõi Krõm (Krasny Krym) was built in Russo-Baltic,

 

Actually Russo-Baltic Shipbuilding and Mechanical Society of Reval was not only Estonian shipbuilder during WW.1. Another Tallinn shipbuilder Bekker ja Ko (Bocker and Co) built Izyaslav class destroyers.

 

I am Estonian, actually. So I am pretty accustomed with given shipbuilders

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×