Jump to content

Xero_Snake

Members
  • Content Сount

    5,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    60

Community Reputation

839 Excellent

About Xero_Snake

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Birthday 02/20/1992
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    DrakkenXero

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Malaysia

Recent Profile Visitors

6,838 profile views
  1. Turns out, the Black Sea Fleet could be viable for the precursor of Cold War-era aircraft cruisers like Project "X" to work around with the Turkish Strait problem, should both ASW, aerial point defense & small intensity airstrikes become a niches as the concept evolves. Given the Nikolayev Shipyard was the only shipyard which its architects & engineers have a key knowledge on aircraft cruiser designs & the capacity to build them. Two Pr. 1123 "Kondor" helicopter cruisers were seen serving the Black Sea Fleet, so ASW could be a viable niche for the fleet to deploy ship-borne aircraft with limited capacity, as the Turkish Strait restricted "real" aircraft carriers from going in & out of the Black Sea. It shouldn't be an issue for Project "X" to find its place on the VMF. Perhaps it come with no surprise that the Japanese Navy's supposedly "debacle of a concept" managed to make its way to the USSR through intel gathering means & it turned out came in handy for the Navy to... "persuade" the conservative-minded top brasses about the usefulness of those "cruisers". Which was a "fortunate" scenario that Erdogan cozy up with Russia that made way for the Black Sea Fleet to go ahead with their operations on Syrian coast, until the carrier strike force of the Northern Fleet came to take over & put their carrier-borne jets & choppers into test.
  2. INB4 Syrian campaign sorties, but in Cold War/late WWII colorized
  3. Xero_Snake

    ST, Soviet cruisers

    I don't see people complaining about so many American or Japanese premium ships
  4. It did offer an interesting all-in-one solution concept on the table at that time. But based on the technical data specs drafted for Project "X" design, it would seem doubtful to function well as initially thought. Personally, the designer should have further expanded the standard displacement to nearly less than 17,000 tonnes & full load must not exceed 20,000 tonnes, by redesigning the superstructures, opt for A-B-Y turret configuration to make more rooms for better AA armaments, larger aircraft hangar, command & communication modules & necessary equipment to maintain floatplanes/flying boats & midget subs. Top speed should reduce to between 33 - 36 knots, cause 36 - 38 knots for a such a large heavy cruiser like that is... not gonna happen. Otherwise, be like what Project 22 supposed to be - a mini-battlecruiser/quasi-battlecruiser But ultimately, despite being a promising design on paper, it ended up what it is, just a design study that never left out from the drawing board. However, this left me with a sound impression that the intriguing concept of Project "X" could as well be representing a potential missing link to the development of more modern aircraft cruisers of the Soviet Navy, such as the Project 1123 "Kondor" - Moskva-class helicopter cruiser & Project 1143 "Krechet" - Kiev-class aircraft cruiser. Design engineers may have picked that up from naval archive for further studies while developing those aforementioned Cold War-era aircraft cruisers. On side note, you left out the Black Sea Fleet. Maybe it could work feasibly on the Mediterranean Sea.
  5. Xero_Snake

    What is Poltava?

    Whilst Poltava is, in fact, the Type "B" light battleship project in design, Poltava is actually based on one of a few designs representing the Type "B" project. More specifically, Poltava is, in actuality, the Project 64 light battleship. Before Pr. 64, there was the Pr. 25 - predecessor of Pr. 64. For the light battleship project itself, Type “B” was meant to be a support for the heavier Type “A” battleship, sometimes it was considered in the same league as the battlecruiser concept – their “heavy cruiser”, for the lack of better term. From my Soviet Premium Ships wish-list thread: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/108636-soviet-vmf-premium-collection-precolle-part-2/ Draft technical data specs & parameters (TTZ) of Project Type "B": Original TTZ of Pr. 64: From my perspective, Pr. 64 - Poltava is supposed to play like a "cruiser killer"-type battlecruiser like the French Dunkerque & the German Scharnhorst. Overall performances should be, more or less, comparable to those two aforementioned "oddball" BBs. Otherwise, play like how you played battecruiser Izmail, as your closest comparison you can come across with. Don't expect Poltava to be like of Sinop on the same tier, but at least she represents a more modern & improved version of Izmail on contemporary superfiring A-B-X BB design, while being on the same league as Scharnhorst.
  6. Thanks. A detailed documentary of Project "X" wasn't available in the internet a few years back, while I was doing some researches & I might have overlooked something along the way. But since mid-2018 or last year, someone finally published that with more scanned figures from original source material. And with that, I can finally see what was its intended purpose. As mentioned, not only it was to primarily function as a "cruiser killer", but also to function as an aircraft cruiser. Its elongated hull was drawn as such for a reason - to make room for a hangar. Basically, Project "X" was to be the Soviet Ooyodo because of the ability to deploy seaplanes for support, coordinating smaller ships within its vicinity & carry out "sneaky" operations at the same time. The Navy had a soft spot on the idea of forming a sizable recon fleets or flotillas, which is why both Kiev & Tashkent existed to lead DDs.
  7. This is just an intriguing design study to share with you guys. But people like you just come here & spit on it with this from your mind? You misunderstood the situation here.
  8. Throughout the course of maritime warfare history since the advent of steam-powered engines in marine engineering, the cruiser-class warship has retroactively proven itself to be a versatile naval war machine on numerous naval combats, capable of performing a wide spectrum of combat roles & tasks depending on the nature of a cruiser's design philosophy, of which neither a battleship nor a destroyer were capable of at those times before the early years of Cold War. Cruisers can be designed & built in various shapes & forms, such as armored cruiser, torpedo cruiser, battlecruiser, scout cruiser, light or heavy cruiser, cruiser killer & even aircraft cruiser. Both of those aforementioned varieties of cruiser-class warships were purpose-built on the framework of their respective design philosophies to determine their technical performances on both tactical & strategic values as an assets in naval warfare. One of the most peculiar cruiser-class warships even existed in concept & design before WWII, was the USSR's Large Cruiser Project "X". Whilst its design was initially intended to be a "cruiser killer" type of heavy cruiser, it was also given a few more combat roles to ensure the Project "X" large cruiser, at least theoretically, is capable of coordinating a small fleet or a flotilla, as well as able to operate independently from fleet command for at least within a few days or within a week period at most. Hence, Project "X" was dubbed, for the lack of better term, the "Superman of Soviet Lands". Soviet Large Cruiser Project "X" - Multipurpose Reconnaissance Heavy Cruiser Concept By 1935, as Dr. Anatoly I. Maslov unveiled Pr. 26 - Kirov to be the first contemporary "light cruiser" for the Soviet Navy in the intensive efforts to rebuild the maritime force of the Soviet Armed Force under the Big Fleet Program at the behest of Joseph Stalin, his colleague V. P. Rimsky-Korsakov conceived the Project "X" large cruiser as the first attempt to materialize the first "heavy cruiser" for the Soviet Navy. Rimsky-Korsakov's concept for his "large cruiser" was not only to be capable of destroying enemy cruisers being as large as the German Deutschland-class cruiser with its main guns being larger than 203mm in caliber, but also to be self-sufficient enough to conduct an autonomous operation outside of the fleet command's chain of command within a certain period of time while coordinating its task/strike force in the form of a small fleet division or a sizable flotilla consist of a few light cruisers, destroyer leaders such as Kiev-class & Tashkent-class, along with a handful of destroyers, submarines, support ships & other smaller sea combatants. Be it carrying out anti-submarine warfare, commerce raiding, intercept enemy raiders or operating a small-medium scale skirmishes, Project "X" was intended to fulfill those aforementioned roles in an unconventional means. Project "X" was designed on the standard displacement of at least 15,518 tonnes & about 17,350 tonnes on full load displacement. In terms of ship hull dimension, it would be 233.6 m in length, 22.3 m in width & 6.6 m in waterline draft. Armed with 4 x 3 - 240 mm/60 main guns; supplemented with 6 x 2 - 130 mm/50 B-2LM twin gun deck turrets, 2 x 3 - 533 mm triple torpedo tubes, 6 x 1 - 45 mm/46 21-K AA cannons & 4 x 1 - 12.7x108 mm DShK heavy machine guns. 240 mm/60 naval gun specs:- • projectile weight: 235 kg • muzzle velocity: 940 m / s • charge mass: 100 kg • ammunition per gun: 110 rds. • rate of fire at an elevation angle of 10 degrees: 5 rds / min • traverse angle: –5 degrees to +60 degrees As for propulsion, Project "X" was designed in the 3-shaft propellers configuration; powered by a total six steam turbine engines & six boilers to generate a total power output of 210,000 shp to produce a top speed of not more than 38.0 knots, in theoretical calculations. Each propeller shaft was to be powered by two steam turbine engines & two boilers to generate a local power output up to 70,000 shp. Such kind of propulsion system would then be applied on destroyer Pr. 45 - Opytny. Armor scheme: Belt - 115 mm Deck - 75 mm Barbette - 115 mm Conning tower - 100 - 150 mm Main turret - 75 - 115 mm B-2LM turret - 50 mm Bulkhead - 115 mm Project "X" was designed on an unusually large hull profile possibly based on Kirov-class in design, with an elongated aft & stern sections to include a large aircraft hangar to accommodate an unusual number of seaplanes of choice (i.e. KOR-1/Be-2 or KOR-2/Be-4) up to at least 9 seaplanes. As such, Project "X" would have effectively function as an aircraft cruiser. Interestingly, the design philosophy behind Project "X" was likely to be based on the Imperial Japanese Navy's Mogami-class & Tone-class heavy cruisers, which were then modified into an aircraft cruiser capable of accommodating between 6 - 11 seaplanes, with the former historically capable to carry up to 11 seaplanes at the very least. It was probably no accident that Rimsky-Korsakov came up with the idea of multipurpose large cruiser, based on the intel gathered from an espionage on the IJN's activities. Moreover, there also was the light cruiser Ooyodo which also initially built to function as an aircraft cruiser, but ultimately functioned more as a command cruiser. IJN Light Cruiser Ooyodo Ultimately, they would mean the Project "X" large cruiser would have been the combination of a firepower of German's Deutschland & Japanese's Tone, plus the multipurpose functionality of the Japanese's Ooyodo. In addition, Project "X" was to get at least two submersible torpedo boats/midget subs designed by TsKBS-1 design bureau, known as the "Flea" - «Блоха» . "Flea-400" submersible torpedo boat/midget sub - «Блохи-400»
  9. Xero_Snake

    ST, Soviet cruisers

    As mentioned, that Tallinn is what would have been if Project 83-K was approved (instead of regressed her into a barrack ship), as the VMF once considered a plan to overhaul & retrofit the incomplete ex-Lutzow/ex-Petropavlovsk. Originally, Pr. 83-K was proposed to rearm Tallinn with four Chapayev's 152mm MK-5 triple gun turrets. Instead, this Tallinn is given with Kirov's 180mm MK-3-180 triple gun turrets in place of MK-5s. The 180mm gun is an oddball in terms of caliber firepower, as it stands in between CL's 6" gun & CA's 8" gun. If follow by the 2nd London Naval Treaty, 180mm is considered as a CA firepower because it's beyond 152mm in caliber. Like the Kirov, slow rate of fire, yet it made up for the combined alpha firepower of twelve 180mm guns. In addition, Pr. 83-K also include 100mm SM-5-1 twin DP gun mounts, 45mm SM-20-ZIFs medium AAs & 25mm 4M-120s light AAs. Plus given two 553mm quint torpedo tubes as a standard postwar configuration, but hopefully she would get a 8.0 km torps, as a 4.0 km torps seem discouraging for me & I can't be sure if Riga might have two quint torpedo tubes if Riga is indeed the Pr. 22 before it become Pr. 69 - Kronshtadt. Armor scheme may not be altered on the ship's deck & hull, but the conning tower & superstructure are altered as a proof of the ship was overhauled. Total engine power output may be stay the same & should able to retain the top speed of 32 knots.
  10. Xero_Snake

    ST, Soviet cruisers

    You're most welcome, sir. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now while this thread is still around, I hereby to link my introspective post from my own thread right here for you guys to see.
  11. WG has already made abundantly clear that they will not have their games to be a simulator-style games, just to make this game "more competitive" & to compete against a game that I'm not gonna name. Sure, you may think your idea is good for the market & maintaining player base, but it's not good for WG to maintain game balancing as well as to what they stood for. They knew that game is in complete mess & they're not going down to that path
  12. I would like to commend Yuzorah for posted the article of the new Soviet VMF light & heavy cruisers recently: https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-the-russian-cruisers-line-split/ I thank him for sparing me the trouble from making a long article, which I'll save it for my other articles in the future. Still, I would like to help making an introspective to complete the circle. Tier V - Kotovsky appears to be, from my knowledge, is possibly an overhauled light cruiser Admiral Butakov of the Svetlana-class (which was incomplete prior to the Russian Civil War). Largely based on Project 78 training cruiser modernization & refit plan, in addition to the Project MK-4 prior to Project 94 Budyonny development & postwar Project MLK-series design studies, particularly the 4 x 2 -152mm MK-4 twin guns. Данные Проект МК-3 МК-4 МК-5 МК-6 Проект 94 по ОТЗ июня 1940 Проект 94 по ОТЗ декабря 1940 Дата — 2 апреля 1940 — 20 марта 1941 Июнь 1940 Декабрь 1940 Водоизмещение 7760 8000 8130 7800 7500 8200 Главный калибр 3х2 152 мм 3х2 152 мм 3х2 152 мм 5х2 130 мм 3х2 152 мм 3х3 152 мм So instead of the 130mm B-2LM turrets, the 152mm MK-4 turrets are selected in place of them. Alexander Nevsky is indeed the Project 84 air defence cruiser. The namesake is befitting for Tier X, given Alexander Nevsky was made a saint in Russian history & is considered as one of the most respectable men among the Russian people with high esteem. Besides, I like how WG devs opted for two SM-48 twin DP gun turrets on the aft of Borodino in place of the nonexistent single quad DP gun turret as shown in the draft blueprint (sensible choice). Just in case if anyone has yet to know what is Borodino & which project she came from, Borodino is, in actuality, the Project TsNII-45 small battleship - Variant III+III-3 Tallinn is indeed an ex-German Hipper-class heavy cruiser Lutzow, and she was formerly Petropavlovsk before renamed to Tallinn after raised from sinking. This Tallinn was, in actuality, to be officially retrofitted under Project 83-K. But it seems like Tallinn is given Kirov's MK-3-180 main gun turrets instead of the supposedly Chapayev's 152mm MK-5 triple gun turrets as originally planned for Pr. 83-K. 4 x 3 – 152mm/57 MK-5 triple gun turrets 6 x 2 – 100mm/70 SM-5-1 twin DP gun turrets 3 x 4 – 45mm/78 SM-20-ZIF quad heavy AA gun mounts 6 x 4 – 25mm/79 4M-120 quad light AA gun mounts I'm not entirely clear about both Riga & Petropavlovsk. But the one thing is certain to me, is that both Riga & Petropavlovsk are supposedly representing a direct parallel to Project 69 - Kronshtadt & Project 82 - Stalingrad. Whilst Petropavlovsk is possibly the Variant III of the Pr. 82 development before it officially laid down as Stalingrad with more modern 305mm main guns, Riga could likely be Project 22 heavy cruiser/battlecruiser that was later cancelled & carried forward to the development of Pr. 69 - Kronshtadt. Other source suggested that Pr. 22 was later picked up for studies to develop Pr. 66 - Moskva. (I sense a slight discrepancy in regards to the fate of Pr. 22) In addition, with Nevsky announced to be the top tier AACL, I got the feeling that Dimitri Donskoy could as well receive a 152mm BL-118 triple DP gun turrets upgrade to keep in the line with the general trend of Tier IX & X being an AACLs like USN's Seattle & Worcester, as well as RN's Neptune & Minotaur.
  13. Xero_Snake

    Mouse's Quick Summary of Premium Battleships

    That sounds like literally? How about metaphorically? As for Pr. 64 - Poltava, an oddball BB like Scharnhorst (given both Pr. 25 & Pr. 64 of Type B light battleship project were meant to defeat Scharnhorst), I personally think she's good & playable at a few ways, maybe slightly better than Horst, but don't really expect her to be perfect. Besides, did you covered Borodino? If didn't do you plan to cover it in the future?
  14. From the way I see it, it's likely to be the air defense (PVO) cruisers as I proposed nearly three years ago: Soviet VMF PVO cruisers line framework Fake or not, at least they got archived project studies & draft design blueprints. It was no stranger that AACLs are a thing for years now, since the British Neptune & Minotaur.
  15. Xero_Snake

    Have Russian BBs been made true Russian Style?

    First of all, I humbly won't say "true Russian style" pre-concept in mind, especially if you think the VMF has no naval doctrine back then (which is something I don't agree about your view on the VMF). They did have one or two, just that they couldn't implement all & make full use of its potential due to unfortunate circumstances during wartime. Even if they managed to build at least one modern BB & CB, foreign policy on military & war will not change much regardless. If anything, the operational tactics & strategies of the ships' roles can be made from scratch through thorough assessments based on ship parameters & validating with the information documented in archived or salvaged documentaries. I will digress my viewpoint on the BB line later.
×