MS406france1940

So, I'm back, and while I now have more PDF books and one actual book as sources I still need help in solving most of my doubts. So this time I have to ask about the Soviet fateful attemp at building a battleship. The Sovetsky Soyuz-class was what happen when the Soviet Union gave building a modern battleship a go, I would go on about the back story but you probably know it, the building process went laughingly wrong and they eventually cut the proyect from 15 to 3 battleships, and then the Germans invaded and the proyect was put out of its missery. Now, I know that the main thing that keep them from existing was the faults in Soviet heavy and shipbuilding industry, but I also know that there were several design problems as well, could one of you please tell me which were these design errors? And as a plus, (and this is AH so feel free to ignore it) if post war Stalin had demanded the completition of some sort of capital ship, which of the 3 (this one, the Kronshtadt, or the Stalingrad) was more likely to be completed in a somewhat funtional state, and what problems would this ships have while in service due to bad construction and design. Thanks for answering in advance (In case someone actually does it)

While it is doctored and all of that, I would put the raising of the Soviet flag in the Reichstag would by a close second in my opinion. And this one isn't as famous but it is rather impactful.

Can you provide more information on this part? I mean I trust you, it just sounds like something fun to read. (Also, you got a 1+)

Not only that but to see the inner workings of these incredible machines that even if they are still with us in some cases are no longer in working order. That's why my favorite video is the "Fighting French Fleet". You can read how guns were loaded, you hear in interviews with veterans and experts how the guns were loaded, and if you are fortunate enough you can go to a museum ship and see the magazines and the guns, but to see the firing cycle in such a complete way as it is shown in that video, it is truly something else.

Well, the book is rather hit and miss when it comes to the criteria it uses for putting ships in the list. I think the strongest cases the author puts forward are all based on design flaws, so, for example, he puts in the Bismarck and the Tegetthoff classes of battleships based on the poor armor layout of the first one and the poor torpedo protection and the stability issues of the latter, he also includes things like HMS Captain and the infamous Russian round gunships for obvious reasons, and just to put forward other examples, the Ryūjō is in the book because of bad performance in aircraft operations and bad hangar design and one of the first classes of Soviet nuclear submarines are also included because they were only good for giving the crew cancer. All of the examples from earlier are at least well argued, but then there are some that just make you scratch your head. As I said above the Hood is in there because she was kind of obsolete by 1941standars, which isn't really that strong of a case even when the armor is taken into account, under the same argument you can put in the book every French battleship prior to the Dunkerque, the España class during the civil war, the Fuso class, the New York class, and in general other classes that aren't considered by anyone the worst thing ever. The four-piper destroyers (the Caldwell, Wickes and Clemson classes) are in there because they were mass produced and they were quickly outclassed by other ships, forget that they were good when compared to other destroyers of the time, forget that they proved to be durable and reliable in service and that they proved to be very versatile, they were bad because they were outclassed soon, which is a fair point, just not strong enough to call the worst on anything. And finally, the Pocket Battleships are in there because the concept was bad, like not the ships themselves, he even says that for what they were the Deutschland class was well designed, but the concept of "Running from anything bigger and outgunning anything smaller" is bad so there for ships are bad... Or something. You get the idea, when the author sticks to what is on paper he does a good job, when he doesn't, the book goes into a nose dive.

So one of the few books I have been able to get my hands on over the years is Antony Preston's "World's Worst Warships" which even I can see has several problems (So the Hood was a bad warship because she was old when she engaged the Bismarck, and the armored cruiser Rurik was one of the worst warships of all time despite a good service record and endurance because she was old and the British had an unjustified panic attack before she was commissioned... Right) But one of the ships that he mentions and the reason why he puts it in the book made me curious. So the Duquesne class of cruisers were the first heavy cruisers the French got around building after the Washington Naval Treaty and as the book explained the wine lovers ran into the same problem everyone else encountered. There was no way in hell they were going to fit good armor, armament, and speed in a 10000-ton displacement. So like everyone had to do the French compromise the armor, but this resulted in a ship that was under-armored even for treaty cruiser standards. 30mm of armor over the magazines, on the deck, and on the turrets, for comparison, every other treaty cruiser surpassed the 60mm over the main belt. According to the book, the ships ended up being too flimsy in construction and thus were worn out easily by their minimal war-time service. Armor aside (Because yes, it sucks) were these ships really that bad when compared to the other cruisers of the late 20's? And true was it that they were so worn out by the end of the war?

Since most ships from the era covered by this game and forum are long gone, one of the few ways we can see the inner workings of these magnificent ships is by film and photos, needless to say, it bloody amazing. Here are just some videos I have found over time, mostly from Pathe News but there are also some other things in there. Enjoy: (I'm really sorry if the music in that one is something you find annoying) And there, I hope you like it If you have more videos feel free to share them

@Kingpin61 Thanks for all the good books comrade. I had been searching for the Destroyermen series for like forever. THANKS A LOT FOR THOSE BOOKS Also, do you by any change have "Castles of Steel" or anything by James D. Hornficher aside from "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors"? I don't have a credit card so... Yeah, I have failed to get those books since the beginning of time. Finally, I have PDF copies of "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" and "The World's Worst Warships" trapped in my phone, if I can get them in my computer I will put them in here if you are okay with that.

@Avenge_December_7 Thanks for the links. Especially liked the first link

@Avenge_December_7 Nice article as always Just want to ask if you have any good online sources for the battle of the Komandorski Islands? I can't buy books at the moment and Wikipedia has a really bad article on it, so if there are other places to find info on it I will take it.

I mean, it sucks for you since you seem to be a nice person from what I have seen and I hope the controversy passes, but I'm kind of happy it isn't Sabaton hate what is going on here.

So some time back I asked in this forum as to why the Austro-Hungarian Navy or KuK didn't do much for during the war, and the general consensus was that. They would have lost a Jutland style engagement against the Italians. The Adriatic wasn't to battleship friendly. They didn't have much coal to sustain prolonged operations anyways. This was apparently so understood at the time that with the exception of the bombardment of Ancona and other time the main battlefleet didn't go out of port very much. The other time they went to sea in full force was in June 1918, when new leadership decided action was needed to take out the Otranto Barrage. The plan they came up with and the forces involved according to Wikipedia goes as follows: "On 8 June 1918 Horthy took his flagship, Viribus Unitis, and Prinz Eugen south with the lead elements of his fleet.[64] On the evening of 9 June, Szent István and Tegetthoff followed along with their own escort ships. Horthy's plan called for Novara and Helgoland to engage the Barrage with the support of the (4) Tátra-class destroyers. Meanwhile, Admiral Spaun and Saida would be escorted by the fleet's four torpedo boats to Otranto to bombard Italian air and naval stations. The German and Austro-Hungarian submarines would be sent to Valona and Brindisi to ambush Italian, French, British, and American warships that sailed out to engage the Austro-Hungarian fleet, while seaplanes from Cattaro would provide air support and screen the ships' advance. The battleships, and in particular Szent István and the other Tegetthoffs, would use their firepower to destroy the Barrage and engage any Allied warships they ran across. Horthy hoped that the inclusion of these ships would prove to be critical in securing a decisive victory" So why didn't this result in an engagement? Because this is a thing. But anyway, in case they had made it as far as to open fire against the ships on the barrage, how would the Italians and French react? Both had a lot of ships to intercept the Austrians. The Italians had 5 dreadnoughts ( Andrea Doria, Duilio, Conte di Cavour, Giulio Cesare, Dante Alighieri), the four pre-dreadnoughts of the Regina Elena class, the armored cruisers Pisa, San Giorgio, and San Marco, 5 protected/light cruisers of the Quarto,Nino Bixino, and Campania classes, 3 protected cruisers of very marginal fighting value, and 22 destroyer that were either with the fleet or on patrol on the barrage. The French had the 3 Bretagne and the 4 Courbets in the area alongside 4 armored or protected cruisers (Tracking them has been rather difficult since I lack proper sources) and God knows how many destroyers, with the exception of the destroyers all were in a very low readiness level due to lack of coal and crew. Finally, there were at least two British light cruisers of the Town class (HMS Liverpool and HMS Weymouth) and at least a division of destroyers on patrol in the barrage. While I wouldn't complain if we went into a possible battleship engagement of the either the Austrians with either the French or Italians battleships (I think they would be separate since from what I have seen coordination was poor and they were at the two different corners of the Otranto Strait, with the French on Corfu and the Italians in Taranto) or Brendisi) In more general terms what do you think would have happen here ? Any answerers are welcome

LONG LIFE SABATON And why the hate with the 3 dislikes on the post?!

HMS Furious would be fun as an April fools ship. You pick the ship, and battle hordes of tier 3 bots while one-shooting them. Very fun indeed And I would personally look forward to the HMS Tiger (A probable tier 5 IMO) since it has better fields of fire but the Lion could be a fun tier 4.

I think the 15-inch guns make this to much for lower tiers and at tier 5 or 6 even the AA guns will get citadels on this thing. I have more hopes for a proper RN battlecruiser line that has the Repulse and its 15-guns attached to a ship that is actually useful.