Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'vmf'.
Found 4 results
Xero_Snake posted a topic in General Game DiscussionTier 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!
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.
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.
Tier III – Knyaz Suvorov Named after Prince/Count Generalissimo Alexander Suvorov, the most renowned Russian prominent military leader throughout the Russian military history. As the last generalissimo of the Imperial Russian military, he was the man who have achieved numerous victories in over 60 battles & many of Soviet & Russian military doctrines were shaped by his legacy combat & logistics doctrines & even the importance of military personnel's morale. Possibly a fitting given namesake for captains & admirals to start getting familiar with Russian/Soviet BBs, honing combat skills as well as tactics & strategies management, and most of all, mustering the leadership to lead the division & fleet to be their examples to follow, not just by force alone. Tier IV – Gangut Named after Battle of Gangut, which was representing the first important & decisive naval victory in the Russian Navy history. It was them against the Swedish Navy at the Hanko Peninsula of the Southern Finland. It was celebrated by the Imperial Russian Navy since then & tend to have a tradition to named at least one capital ship after that particular naval battle. Tier V – Pyotr Veliky Named after Peter The Great. The once successful Tsar who then became the founder of the Russian Empire, effectively crowned the first Emperor/Imperator of the newly-founded Russian Empire & the head ruler of House Romanov that has long reigned the empire until 1917. He was famous for Westernized most of the Russian cultures, traditions & government institutions reform, as well as laid a framework to modernized & shaped the Russian Navy as one of the most formidable European naval powers to be reckoned with. He has been quite well-known in the Russian VMF as well as at St. Petersburg for being one of Russia's iconic naval cities, Russia cultural center & the former capital city of Russia. Tier VI – Izmail Named after Siege of Izmail. It was a military campaign led by none other than Generalissimo Prince Alexander Suvorov to besieged Izmail during the Russo-Turkish War 1787 - 1792 & dealt a killing blow to the Ottoman Empire at Kinburn, Ochakov & Foscani with the Black Sea fleet led by a certain Spanish admiral - Jose de Ribas. In that war, came with the slogan "Grom pobedy, razdavaysya!" (Let the thunder bring the sound of victory) to be commemorated as a Day of Military Honor. Tier VII – Sinop Named after the Battle of Sinop, of which was Russia's most earthshaking naval campaign against the Turkish forces of the Ottoman Empire at Sinope during the Crimean War, where the Imperial Russian Navy utilized high-explosive shells of Piaxhans guns for the first time in history, effectively evolved the naval warfare doctrines since then. Prior to Sinop the standard naval armament were smoothbores that fired cannonballs, shot, shrapnel or other projectiles. Piaxhans guns were slowly being integrated into navies but only the French, Russian and American navies had made a comprehensive effort. These batteries represented a clear evolution in naval technology that broke through the final ceiling of the Age of Sails. Tier VIII – Vladivostok Named after one of the Russian VMF's historic & strategically-important port cities - Vladivostok. Its naval fortress complex has hardly been attacked & remained unscathed throughout from WWI to WWII & beyond despite being heavily fortified & was already prepared to fend off a large wave of invading naval forces, particularly against the Imperial Japanese Navy. Tier IX – Sovetsky Soyuz Literally the Soviet Union itself. The lead ship was named as such & the rest of the ambitious number of 15 ships were all to be laid down to be named after all fifteen Soviet republics, with each ship representing a Soviet republic of the USSR - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Turkmenistan & Tajikistan. Those were all once under the Russian Empire - except Finland, which broke away & declared independence from the Russian Empire since 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution broke out. Tier X – Kreml Whilst the namesake given, Kreml, tends to associate with the Moscow Kremlin - the central administrative government complex of the USSR & modern Russia by many. If anyone understand Russian language, Kreml is, in fact, a fortress complex. Unironically, this Soviet Leviathan represents as a cruising/floating fortress with not only being the tankiest, most resilient BB of all with the highest HP, armor & torpedo protection parameter to tank torps better than anyone; but also stands out for having the most powerful naval armaments comparable to Yamato & has 2nd most powerful AA capability comparable to Montana.