Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'kiev'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 3 results

  1. Tier IX Premium Soviet VMF Destroyer Suggestion: Project 48-K – Yerevan Historical background: The Project 48 destroyer leader, also officially known as the Kiev-class, was designed in response to the arrival of the lead ship of Project 20I destroyer leader – Tashkent, from Italy, along with the subsequent cancellation of other three Tashkent-class destroyer leaders that were planned to be built at the Soviet Union altogether. Originally, the Naval Ministry of the Soviet Navy was expecting to build four Tashkent-class destroyer leaders in the thorough efforts of rebuilding & modernizing both the Baltic, Black Sea & Northern Fleets – the lead ship, Tashkent, built in Italy; the other three to be built at their homeland. However, the Tashkent-class was apparently a foreign-built warship & henceforth, Tashkent was somehow being too alien & problematic for the Soviet shipbuilding standards of its time to incorporate the Italian shipbuilding methodology. As such, Pr. 20I was officially abandoned in favor of Pr. 48 (Kiev-class) for a low-cost shipbuilding alternative, in addition of similar engineering features & parameters analogous to the Tashkent-class. Pr. 48 – Kiev-class ship design was built on the following dimensions: - · Length – 127.8 m · Beam – 11.7 m · Draft – 4.8 m Judging from the overall ship hull dimensions, the Kiev-class ship hull was designed & built largely based on the two predecessors with slight improvements – Pr. 1 – Leningrad-class & Pr. 38 – Minsk-class. Even more so evidently with the very similar propulsion system of 3-shafts, 3-bladed propellers; 3 water-tube boilers, 3 geared steam turbines configuration found on both Leningrad & Minsk-class were also implemented for the Kiev-class, but with more powerful total propulsive output of 90,000 shaft horsepower over the predecessors’ 66,000shp – each propeller shaft has a net output power 30,000shp instead of 22,000shp, which in turn produced the top speed of 42.0 knots compared to both Leningrad’s & Minsk’s 40.0 knots. In overall, Kiev-class was seen as a large improvement over the Minsk-class – with the latter claimed to be an improved version of the Leningrad-class, albeit with admittedly marginal improvements in seaworthiness, operation range & anti-aircraft armament. But for the Kiev-class, she has much greater operation range, much more manoeuvrable, better seaworthiness & has a vastly superior combat performances over the Minsk-class in a considerably large margin, with a combined firepower no worse than the Tashkent-class. Given the Soviet shipbuilders were more familiar with the existing Leningrad-class design, they ultimately preferred to further improve existing tried-and-true design & solution over a rather more foreign & radically different concept. That factor also helped contribute to their convenience of planned mass production of initial 30 Kiev-class destroyer leaders, but later decided to half the production to 15 ships. In comparison with the Tashkent-class in terms of armaments, the Kiev-class featured three 130mm B-2LM twin gun turrets in similar configuration to the Tashkent-class. However, instead of three 533mm 1-N triple torpedo tubes, Kiev-class has two 533mm 2-N quintuple torpedo tubes which grants the destroyer leader slightly more powerful salvo firepower than his/her Italian cousin. As for anti-aircraft armament, Kiev-class was to be armed with a single 76.2mm 39-K twin high-angle AA gun turret similar to Tashkent’s, in addition to four 12.7mm twin-linked DShK heavy machine guns in the form of small DShKM-2B turrets. Though not as powerful as Tashkent’s, but performances would not be worse than Tashkent either. Initially, as mentioned, a total 30 ships were planned to be built in the 3rd Five-Year Plan, but ultimately halved the productions to 15 ships – first 12 ships to be constructed on the 3rd Five-Year Plan & the remaining 3 ships in the 4th Five-Year Plan. 10 out of 15 ships were given a namesake. They were: - Kiev, Yerevan, Stalinabad, Ashkhabad, Alma-Ata, Petrozavadosk, Ochakov, Perekop, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk Only Kiev (lead ship), Yerevan & Stalinabad were officially laid down on the near end of December 1939, however. Though 2 out of 3 laid down ships – Kiev & Yerevan have begun construction at the Marti South shipyard of Nikolayev (now Mykolaiv), whilst the construction order of Stalinabad at a Leningrad shipyard was cancelled & summarily scrapped. Pr. 48 - Kiev-class under construction at Nikolayev No. 198 Shipyard, circa 1939 In August 1941, during the onset of the Great Patriotic War, Kiev was nearly 50% completed & Yerevan was 25.4% completed. But just as when the combined German & Romanian forces invaded Ukraine, both of the incomplete twins – Kiev & Yerevan, were forced to be prematurely launched from the shipyard & towed to the Georgian port of Batumi in January 1942, while the Soviet Navy’s marines, naval infantrymen & coastal defence forces were heavily resisting the advancing Axis forces in Ukraine during the Siege of Sevastopol campaign. Until the near end of the Great Patriotic War in April 1945, both Kiev & Yerevan were towed back to Nikolayev & began plans to complete them under a revised design of Project 48-K. Unfinished Yerevan at Sevastopol, August 1941 The Pr. 48-K plan to complete both Kiev & Yerevan with a list of modernization refit proposals were on the following: - · Replace the 76.2mm 39-K twin AA gun turret with a more powerful 85mm 92-K twin AA gun turret · Further upgrade anti-aircraft armament with eight 37mm twin-linked water-cooled V-11 AA gun mounts · Upgrade both 2-N quintuple torpedo tubes to PTA-53-series quintuple torpedo tubes (presumably PTA-53-48-K) & to be armed with more modern 533mm torpedoes beyond 53-39 (probably from 53-48, 53-49, 53-50/53-50M, 53-51 & up to 53-56) · Refit the ship with a lighter, more thermally efficient steam turbine propulsion system as the expense of reduced top speed from 42.0 knots to 39.5 knots for better seakeeping · Equip the ship with Gyuis-2 and/or Rif surface search radar(s) · Increased total depth charges loaded from 30 to 48 With such promising upgrades, the revised Pr. 48-K would have been effectively reclassified the Kiev-class from a destroyer flotilla leader to a large destroyer based on the Soviet Navy’s postwar ship classification combat roles, aligned with both Pr. 35 – Udaloy-class & Pr. 40/Pr. 40N. However, in reality, such upgrade would not only increase the ship’s displacement by nearly 400 tons, but would also cause stability issue due to the ship design’s constraints & limitations should the latest gun firing control radar be fitted on the ship. Ultimately, Pr. 48-K was eventually fell out of favour, abandoned any further developments & had those two ill-fated ships be summarily scrapped or used as a target ship hulks. As such, every resource planned for the revised Kiev-class were then allocated to Pr. 30-bis “Smeltiy”/Skoryy-class destroyer – a postwar modernized version of Pr. 30-K – Ognevoy-class (another ship project revised alongside Pr. 29-K – Yastreb-class frigate/”guard ship”, Pr. 48-K – Kiev-class large destroyer & Pr. 68-K – Chapayev-class light cruiser). In this article, I hereby to propose Kiev’s brother/sister ship – Yerevan to be a potential Tier IX premium destroyer-class warship, purchasable with coals in the Armory store worth more than 200,000 coals & never exceed 240,000 coals. How would Yerevan present in-game & how would he/she stand out from other baseline ships at the same tier as a premium ship? Summary · Based on the historical & technical backgrounds of the Kiev-class destroyer as stated above, Yerevan will be based mostly on the actual Pr. 48-K refit plan. Yerevan will not be played as a usual destroyer flotilla leader class like his/her lead brother/sister ship Kiev, but as a large destroyer-type just like Pr. 35 – Udaloy & Pr. 40N – Grozovoy. In other words, Yerevan will be played like Kiev with Udaloy’s gimmicks & quirks. · In terms of overall ship performance parameters, Yerevan will largely retain most upgraded Kiev’s combat parameters, but with some slight improvements. Except the top speed will reduce to 39.5 knots & probably gain a marginal buff in turning radius & rudder shift time, because of a more efficient propulsion system fitted on the ship, which would then pass down to Pr. 30-bis – Smeltiy/Skoryy-class destroyer. · Whilst representing a vast improvement over Kiev, Yerevan is expecting to either perform comparably or slightly better than Tashkent, as well as no worse than Udaloy in some aspects as a large destroyer, in addition of surveillance radar for a more tactical utility role. As a brother/sister ship to Kiev, Yerevan retains many of Kiev’s physical appearance along with technical design flaws & quirks. However, Yerevan would appear with some notable differences from Kiev, which are in terms of armament, propulsion parameters & a few additional loadouts. Yerevan’s armament would be radically different from Kiev as of the following: - 3 x 2 – 130mm B-2LM twin gun turrets -or- 3 x 2 – 130mm B-2-U or BL-109 twin DP gun turrets (like Udaloy’s & aligns with Tashkent’s already woeful circumstances) 1 x 2 – 85mm 92-K twin DP gun turret (same as Kiev’s unique feature of additional secondary guns) 9 x 2 – 37mm V-11 twin water-cooled AA gun mounts 2 x 5 – 533mm PTA-53-48 quintuple torpedo tubes; armed with either two choices of 53-48, 53-49, 53-50, 53-51 & up to 53-56 torpedoes in selection range (8.0 – 10.0 km in range at the very least) Possible consumables (excluding Damage Control Party): - Repair Team Defensive AA [Smoke Screen] [Engine Boost] Surveillance Radar (Gyuis-2 or Rif surface search radar) Both Smoke Screen & Engine Boost should be an optional choice, so that Yerevan could stand out from both Tashkent & Udaloy at the same tier in consumable gimmicks. Or rather, the pre-0.9.5 Soviet large destroyers’ tactical handicap with consumables like Udaloy’s. Even more so with a surface search surveillance radar to grant Yerevan a much needed tactical & strategic advantages for the fleet, which neither Tashkent nor Udaloy could ever had. Furthermore, unlike Kiev, Yerevan can finally access to the final ship upgrade slot 6 to further enhance Yerevan’s combat performances. No main gun firing range upgrade like the rest of the Soviet destroyers, however. In terms of combat parameters, Yerevan’s possible advantages over Tashkent will obviously be having a much lower ship design in concealment & better handling in maneuverability, though at the expense of lower HP & slower top speed. However, if comparing with Udaloy, 39.5 knots is far from being at the worst off in the spectrum & the difference is relatively minuscule compared to Udaloy’s 40.0 knots in top speed as it is on par with Grozovoy’s. But regardless, the supposed “downgrade” in top speed from 42.5 knots to 39.5 knots by 3.0 knots is relatively minor & would not adversely affect Yerevan’s performances in a rather negative way. Given the reduced top speed, Yerevan may expect to be marginally or slightly more maneuverable than Kiev – slightly smaller turning radius & marginally shorter rudder shift time. Nevertheless, Yerevan would be, in overall, a vast improvement over his/her brother/sister ship – Kiev, in most aspects. Whilst Yerevan would also perform comparably with both of his/her cousin combined – Udaloy & Tashkent, at the same tier of Tier IX. Thus, to summarize the possible advantages over Tashkent and/or Udaloy are of the following: - · Slightly smaller ship profile, hence slightly stealthier than either of them (albeit in a relatively small degree) · Outmatches Tashkent in torpedoes payload, could be a lot better if a postwar torpedoes with 10.0 km range are given · Much more manoeuvrable than Tashkent & somehow as maneuverable as Udaloy · Superior anti-aircraft firepower (depending on the choice of 130mm DP guns) · The only destroyer with a secondary armament, like Kiev, to finish off a crippled enemy destroyer, though admittedly in a relatively minuscule chance · Has surveillance radar to stand out as a more tactical & strategic value asset for reconnaissance & coordinated operations, especially useful when cyclone & thunderstorm limits visual range As for weaknesses: - · Weaker survivability than both Tashkent & Udaloy nonetheless · Slower than Tashkent, but not to Udaloy’s case · Torpedoes armament may not be as flexible as an upgraded Udaloy · Somewhat more unstable in gun fire control on full speed maneuvers · Surveillance radar may be severely short in time duration On side note, it was stated that the Kiev-class was supposed to be a spiritual successor to the Tashkent-class & was expecting the former to either be comparable or would have been projected to perform better than the latter – which is quite relatable to a parallel case of both the Swedish Navy’s Halland-class & Östergötland-class destroyers. With Yerevan representing as the Tier IX premium Kiev-class with postwar technology fitted on board to be as capable as Tashkent or better & no worse than Udaloy-class in combat performances, that would be a given!
  2. I have Kiev and am moving up the line. Is the Taskent even worth getting on the way--or just skipping? Everything I've read doesn't sound inspiring and I'm thinking of just skipping the ship. I'd be interested in hearing from those who have owned her what their experience was. Thanks!
  3. ....and i'd like to apologize for the TLDR of this post in advance, people....I would've written a shorter introduction, but I didn't have time.... ....In the current meta and with ranked kicking off it's 14th season....Let's try to come to a consensus on this.... ....I'll give you my full take on my experience of these ships: ....With the DWT-using PA line, I deferred to my instincts as a DD/BB main who plays DDs for the adrenaline and thought--nope, I'm not going down that tech tree...so: no idea....in fact the feel of being targeted by a PA with DWTs is alien to me--sort of like being the wingman in the old "Thatch Weave" in the days of the Hellcats and Wildcats....tough call there. ....The Kagero is my most played ship....Her stealth is excellent, her 'pedoes are long range dump-trucks of battlewagon annihilating little bastids....Her drawbacks are, like most of the IJN DDs, a slow reload on the arty and that she can only area-denial in the caps so much....I usually load the TRB, which throws off some players because they're not necessarily aware I can't provide smoke for the big dogs. ....With the Akizuki, again, I prefer a stealth-torp feel and the "bravery of being out of range" as a DD so I've only test-conned the Akis on the PTS....I don't feel like I'm ready to buy one or fxp one on that fork of the IJN DD line....I will say, though, during the 13th season of ranked using a Z-46/Kagero platoon of course the Akis and the T9 Kitakazes and T10 Harugumos were real trouble for me to deal with. ....As the French DD line has debuted recently, I have to say I didn't like the lack of smoke in the first few DDs....I took a Jaguar into a random with a pal on the New Dawn map and got dusted off immediately....The French DDs do not look like something I'll be good with until I practice in coop with them more....so much for fans of the Le Fantasque. ....As for the KM, I have the aforementioned Z-46 but have not played her very much apart from my foray into the 13th season....so with respect to the Z-23, again--I'd have to call "limited data sample" on that one....My go-to KM DD is the T-22 and I have a nice T-61 that's really a Gaeda with more stealth and quicker loading fish, but not the 150mm upgrade that the Gaeda has as an option for the MB. ....as for the VMF of the USSR/Russian DDs, I have never liked the feel of being a sort of cap-bully with arty that's meant to slice other DDs to pieces up front....I have experience of the Kiev and the Ognevoi in randoms that makes me conclude that with the heal buff they got some months back, I'd say I'd prefer the Kiev now for random/ranked, but pre-heal buff the Ognevoi was also good....2 things: the ballistics and the reloads on those two are like [edited] light sabers being tossed and everyone is telekinetic....You can barely miss when you're in tight going smash-mouth to another DD....the Ognevoi has that other weird wrinkle in that you can have a different torpedo suite with one hull or the other....So my vote there for what I'd want in the 14th season is Kiev. ....The Benson is, for me, a good platoon with the Kagero--you've got good smoke and a 10-torp spread to work with, so that really all you have to compensate for is the weird trajectories on those 127mm rifles that can be hard to walk-in at distance....She's near the top of my list among all these boats. ....Lastly, the Lightning is, in a way, my brand new toy....I finally fxp'd past the Jervis because I never like that one's specs....I did that today and took the Lighting back into coop--having barely tested her on the last time the PTS was up....so stay tuned to my full take on that puppy. ....So?....the verdict?....I *would've taken a Kiev into ranked in the next few days and see what else I might want to riff on herein. *[desmo spotted this error on my part] ....Your thoughts?
×