Unfinished Russian battleship

[Guest]

Speaking of high bridge, its absence on the Russian ship implies a significant handicap in long range fire control. This is not just in relation to G-3, but also to contemporary ships like the Hood.

- Chuck

[Guest]

But I still want to build the 1917 version in 1/350 scale. Interesting design and not too difficult.

[Guest]

Of course it was a 'less efficient' design than the G3, given that the Kostenko design dates from 1916 and the G3 from 1920/21. They are virtually two different generations of ships. Far fairer to compare them with their true peers, the Japanese Nagato and American Colorado classes. Do that and I suspect you'll find the Russian design rather efficient.

The Russian design appears to be less heavily armored than Nagato, and much less heavily armored than Colorado, despite being substantially larger.

They would have compared poorly against Amagi, a closer equivalent in tonnage and other bulk characteristics than Nagato.

I take that back. I just noticed it had an usual double belt totalling close to 15", not a single 11" belt. But it's deck armor is still thin, only 3".

[Roger T]

The displacement of the Russian ship does not have to support a high bridge, and therefore ought to be able to support somewhat more hull armor.

Well, gven that the design was only a fairly rough design, I wouldn't put too much store in the displacement figure being precise. Also, we don't know what the figure quoted refers to anyway - light, full-load, what?

I do agree that the deck armout is rather thin, but again, any comparisons with G3 are entirely specious.

[chuck]

I do not agree with the position that the later date of the G-3 explains its greater efficiency in accommodating thicker armor and high speed. Except for general reduction in the weight and size of power plants too gradual to have too much effect in the 4 years separating these two designs, dreadnought battleship development had not been characterized by any notable increase in efficiency as represented by ability to accommodate more armor, more engine power and more gun power on a given displacement. As a general trend, improvements in fire power and armor thickness have consistently been purchased at the expense of increased overall size at least commensurate with the increase in armor and fire power. What is more, since battleships gradually acquired ever more weight in the form of ancillary equipment, such as power generation, high perched directors, and configuration such as internal bulkhead, unit machineries etc over the development trajectory, later battleships actually do rather more poorly than earlier ones when measured purely on the basis of speed, armor thickness and firepower achieved on a given displacement. A WWII era battleship of nominally the same speed, armor thickness and firepower would be substantially larger than a WWI era ship.

Thus the poor relative specification of the Russian ship when compared to the G-3 is both significant and indicative of a lower quality design work.

[chuck]

Hmmm. The later Sovietskii Soyuz class battleships, started by Stalin in 1939 and aborted by German invasion in 1941, apparently had even greater total weight of armor than the slightly larger Yamato. Its Swiss made turbine and boiler plants are, on a horse-power per ton basis, the most efficient of any projected for any WWII battleship, even though its steam condition was not particularly extreme.

[Werner]

Hmmm. The later Sovietskii Soyuz class battleships, started by Stalin in 1939 and aborted by German invasion in 1941, apparently had even greater total weight of armor than the slightly larger Yamato. Its Swiss made turbine and boiler plants are, on a horse-power per ton basis, the most efficient of any projected for any WWII battleship, even though its steam condition was not particularly extreme.

If the quoted horsepower was not the fabrication of an apparatchik protecting his position, or maybe a plant to be seen by the checkists.

I see the agricultural output of Ukraine SSR rose thoughout the 1930s as well.

[Guest]

Hmmm. The later Sovietskii Soyuz class battleships, started by Stalin in 1939 and aborted by German invasion in 1941, apparently had even greater total weight of armor than the slightly larger Yamato. Its Swiss made turbine and boiler plants are, on a horse-power per ton basis, the most efficient of any projected for any WWII battleship, even though its steam condition was not particularly extreme.

If the quoted horsepower was not the fabrication of an apparatchik protecting his position, or maybe a plant to be seen by the checkists.

I see the agricultural output of Ukraine SSR rose thoughout the 1930s as well.

The power plant was designed and built by Brown Boveri in Switzerland.

I don't find it hard to believe argricuture output of Ukraine rose thought the 1930s since it sure as hell can't fall any lower than those seen during the heydays of the first collectivization in the early 1930s.

[Werner]

I don't find it hard to believe argricuture output of Ukraine rose thought the 1930s since it sure as hell can't fall any lower than those seen during the heydays of the first collectivization in the early 1930s.

I meant decade on decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[chuck]

Yes, according to official Soviet figures, even with very large degree of agricutural mechanization and infrastructural expansion that occurred during Soviet times, Ukraine did not manage to reach its 1913 grain production level again until 1967.

[Rurik_II]

There is an excellent book "Last giants of Russian empire". It describes a course of designing and all variants of projects of Russian ships with 16 inch artillery of the main calibre

[Guest]

There is an excellent book "Last giants of Russian empire". It describes a course of designing and all variants of projects of Russian ships with 16 inch artillery of the main calibre

Is it available in non-Russian?