Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
89 posts

Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier Design Studies from 1900 till 1949

 

It goes without saying that WOWS will see several of the USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies introduced into the game, probably around May in either 2021 or 2022.

 

This topic presents an overview of what little reliable data is available on Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies for the time frame of WOWS.

 

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had some Aircraft Carrier design studies.

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had not started actual construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

 

The Soviet Union had Aircraft Carrier design studies dating from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953.

The USSR regime had from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953 not started construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

 

Reliable data on the USSR Aircraft Carriers is hard to come by and reliable plans are even more rare still.

To my knowledge there is no reliable data on any USSR Carrier Aircraft designs.

 

It would be a long time before the USSR commissioned her first Carrier. In 1967 the USSR Helicopter Carrier MOSKWA was commissioned, becoming the first Carrier of the USSR.

 

During the time frame of WOWS, roughly from 1900 till 1953, there were various Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies, this topic will list those that have more or less reliably been identified. None of these seem to have been more than design studies, meaning none of them resulted in actual construction blueprints that were ever seriously considered for construction.

 

The USSR up till 1953 did have one Aircraft Carrier though, but it was not designed or built in the USSR.

 

Up till 1953 the only Aircraft Carrier that the USSR posessed was the German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which had been completed up till 95% by January 1943. After WW2 key German naval aviation facilites and the Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN, including her latest blueprints, fell into the hands of the USSR. The GRAF ZEPPELIN had however been thoroughly and severely sabotaged and subsequently scuttled by the German Navy. The USSR Navy at the direction of Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov ordered the GRAF ZEPPELIN raised and rudimentary repaired so she could be towed to Leningrad where she was to be fully repaired and completed so she could be commissioned and become the first Aircraft Carrier in the service of the USSR. The USSR had at that time, other than some drawings, no Aircraft Carrier technology whatsoever unlike Germany which had developed, built and tested all technology required for the GRAF ZEPPELIN class and her aircraft even before WW2 had started.

 

When USSR engineers had finally patched up and repainted the scuttled GRAF ZEPPELIN to the point that she could finally be towed to the USSR it was not to be because on Stalin's direct orders Admiral Kuznetsov was ignominiously removed from his post and in 1948 he, as well as several other USSR admirals were put on show trials by the USSR Naval Tribunal and all found "guilty". Admiral Kuznetsov was then criminalized, marginalized, demoted and ultimately humiliated, and the other USSR admirals received prison sentences of varying length. Kuznetsov's successor then had the only partially and rudimentary repaired GRAF ZEPPELIN towed to sea on Stalin's orders to be sunk by the USSR Air Force, Stalin's "Falcons". These however proved unable to do so after repeated air attacks and even aerial bombs pre-installed in the ship failed to do so, as a result the USSR Navy was finally ordered to sink her with torpedoes. As a result the USSR would have to wait until 1967 before she could commission her first Aircraft Carrier.

 

 


Conversion Project ADMIRAL LAZAREV

Design study date: 1909/1910
Displacement: 3,750 standard tons
Length: 80.2 meters
Beam: 12 meters
Draught: 5 meters
Propulsion: 1 expansion machine with 5 boilers
Power of propulsion: 2,000 HP
Speed: 10.5 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 5-8
Catapults: 1
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: yes
Building yard: the ironclad was built at Carr & Mac Pherson in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as ironclad on 29 May 1867
Launched: as ironclad on 21 September 1867
Commissioned: as ironclad in 1872


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the ironclad ADMIRAL LAZAREV.
The idea for conversion came from a Colonel in the Imperial Russian Army named Michael M. Konokotin.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

KZb8xJN.png

 

 


Conversion Project IZMAIL

Design study date: 1928
Displacement: 36,000 standard tons
Length: 228 meters
Beam: 29.9 meters
Draught: 9.4 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of Franco-Russian turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers
Power of propulsion: 66,000 HP
Speed: 26.5 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 2x 76 mm (2x1), up to 10 other Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes
Number of Aircraft: 75
Catapults: -
Hanger: 4
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 238-100 mm, deck 38 mm
Building yard: the Battlecruiser was laid down at the Baltic Yard in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as Battlecruiser on 19 December 1912
Launched: as Battlecruiser on 22 June 1915
Commissioned: -


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the incomplete Battlecruiser IZMAIL.
Several variants were examined.
One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island".
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

EthiWtr.png

 

zyBagiD.jpg

 

VhYqVRv.png

 

 


Conversion Project POLTAVA

Design study date: 1926
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 181 meters
Beam: 26.8 meters
Draught: 8.3 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of Parson turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers
Power of propulsion: 42,000 HP
Speed: 23 knots
knots/endurance: 1800 nautical miles at 30 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 2x 76 (2x1), up to 10 Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes
Number of Aircraft: 50
Catapults: -
Hanger: 4
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 250 mm, deck 100 mm
Building yard: the Battleship was laid down at the Admiralty Yard in in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg)
Laid down: as Battleship on 15 May 1912
Launched: as Battleship on 10 July 1911
Commissioned: as Battleship on 30 December 1914 (renamed FRUNZE on 7 January 1926)


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the dreadnought POLTAVA.
Several variants were examined.
One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island".
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

lnNdMyk.png

 

7WgdtSd.png

 

 


Conversion Project KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN)

Design study date: 1927
Displacement: 11,680 standard tons
Length: 149.9 meters
Beam: 17.4 meters
Draught: 7.6 meters
Propulsion: 2 steam engines
Power of propulsion: 1,100 HP
Speed: 15 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: as training ship 530
Armament: 16x 102 mm (8x2)
Number of Aircraft: 42
Catapults: -
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: -
Building yard: the training ship was laid down at the Howaldtswerke in Kiel (Germany)
Laid down: as training ship in 1908
Launched: as training ship in 1908
Commissioned: as training ship in 1909


Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out.
Conversion of the training ship KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN).
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

Z5Mzziv.png

 

JaYWXqo.png

 

t29cpXe.jpg

 

aUL9aop.png

 

n6MHQDZ.png

 

 


Aircraft Carrier for the Shipbuilding Program

Design study date: 1938+
Displacement: 11,000 standard tons
Length: 180 meters
Beam: 20 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ? turbines
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 4,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: as training ship 530
Armament: 6-8x 130 mmm 8x 37 m
Number of Aircraft: 40-50
Catapults: ?
Hanger: yes
Aircraft Elevators: yes
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -

 

Project study, 2 were planned, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

YCfoaMx.png

 

 


Project 1058.1 Gibbs & Cox Design A

Design study date: November 1937
Displacement: 66,074 standard tons
Length: 304.8 meters
Beam: 36.7 meters
Draught: 10.46 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers
Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 457 mm (4x2), 28x 127 mm (14x2), 24x 28 mm, 10x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x2 457 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.
US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

mWPrqj0.png

 

 


Project 1058.2 Gibbs & Cox Design B

Design study date: July 1938
Displacement: 71,850 standard tons
Length: 306.32 meters
Beam: 36.73 meters
Draught: 10.46 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers
Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Complement: 2706
Armament: 12x 406 mm (4x3), 28x 12.7 mm (14x2), 32x 28 mm, 12x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x3 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.
US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

x9LsjUE.png

 

FWZs417.png

 

w7wmW0W.png

 

qaMqOMX.png

 

e3Jmx5H.png

 

 


Project 1058.3 Gibbs & Cox Design C

Design study date: July 1938
Displacement: 55,206 standard tons
Length: 257.56 meters
Beam: 35.05 meters
Draught: 10.16 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers
Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP
Speed: 31 knots
knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 10x 406 mm (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 20x 28 mm, 20x 12.7 mm
Number of Aircraft: 24 + 4 Flying Boats
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.


Project study, none were laid down.
Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.

US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

EiVjWcx.png

 

GsQ0Qrv.png

 

 

 

Project 1058.4 Gibbs & Cox Design D

Design study date: March 1939
Displacement: 45,000 standard tons
Length: 257.56 meters
Beam: 34.95 meters
Draught: 10.16 meters
Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers
Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP
Speed: 31 knots
knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots
Complement: 2010
Armament: 10x 406 (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 16x 28 mm (4x4), 10x 12.7 mm (10x1)
Number of Aircraft: 4
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 330-178 mm, deck main 121+28, deck lower 44-32
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -
The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck.
The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only.

 

Project study, none were laid down.
This is the FINAL Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox.
This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns.
The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design.

US government officials finally also vetoed this design because the USSR had invaded and occupied more than half of Poland in 1939 (and also in 1919/1920 but were defeated then) and then also invaded Finland in 1939.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

YCfoaMx.png

 

 


Icebreaker-Carrier KIROV

Design study date: 1936
Displacement: 8,300 standard tons
Length: 110 meters
Beam: 21 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 4
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 1
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

LDdOHLe.png

 

 


Project 71a

Design study date: 1936
Displacement: 13,000 standard tons
Length: 191 meters
Beam: 17.7 meters
Draught: 6.3 meters
Propulsion: 2 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers
Power of propulsion: 130,000 HP
Speed: 34 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2) initial design replaced in final design by 8x 100 mm (8x1), 16x 37 mm (4x4), ?x 12.2 mm
Number of Aircraft: 30-45
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: yes
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
Based on the hull of the Light Cruiser Project 68, better known as the CHAPAEV-class.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

BN71T7o.png

 

IdbUens.png

 

R1RXMfY.png

 

DFEhAhM.jpg

 

 

 

Project 71b

Design study date: 1937
Displacement: 38,600 standard tons
Length: 248 meters
Beam: 31.4 meters
Draught: 9.1 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers
Power of propulsion: 231,000 HP
Speed: 33 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 32x 37 mm (8x4), ?x 12.2 mm
Number of Aircraft: 70
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 2
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 225 mm, deck 87.5 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 20 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT
After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

Mf07yxV.png

 

 

Project 72

Design study date: 1942/1943
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 224 meters
Beam: 27.9 meters
Draught: 8.4 meters
Propulsion: 4 sets of turbines
Power of propulsion: 144,000 HP
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: ?
Complement: 2,000
Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 16x 87 mm (8x2), 24x 37 mm (12x2), 48x 23 mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 60
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
The design has some superficial similarities with the USA Carrier YORKTOWN.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

CZmH7Vk.png

 

J1P9qsG.png

 

N7RycqX.png

 

VejHfZr.png

 

 

IjU1JsW.png

 

vCDbnpo.png

 

khCNI2F.png

 

 

 

ZKB-17

Design study date: November 1944+
Displacement: 51,000 standard tons
Length: 280 meters
Beam: 32 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 32 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 8x 152 mm (4x2), 24x100 mm (12x2), ?x 23 mm
Number of Aircraft: 100
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
The design made use of the 1936 blueprints of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN.
The Project was a study made by Lieutenant Kostromitinov, a student of naval architechture at the Soviet Naval Academy.
The Soviet Naval Academy during WWII had been moved from Leningrad (present day Saint Petersburg) to Samarkand in Asia.
The USSR had requested and received the plans of the GRAF ZEPPELIN as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

This Carrier design study is mostly based on the GRAF ZEPPELIN design.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

yJsSbIu.png

 

o8fRtI4.png

 

bS0SRDM.jpg

 

1PyoMmT.jpg

 

 

 

Project 72 II-B

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 34,400 standard tons
Length: 273 meters
Beam: 35.5 meters
Draught: 8.7 meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: 2300
Armament: 24x130 mm (12x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 62
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

hM4RyY1.png

 

 


Project 72-III-M

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 28,800 standard tons
Length: 242 meters
Beam: 32.5 meters
Draught: 7.5 meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 30 knots
knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: 2000
Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2)
Number of Aircraft: 30
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 1
Aircraft Elevators: 2
Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

08LRZ06.png

 

 

 

"Squadron Carrier"

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: ? standard tons
Length: ? meters
Beam: ? meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: 3,000 nautical miles at 18 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 30-35
Catapults: ?
Hanger: ?
Aircraft Elevators: ?
Armor: belt ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
After the cancellation of Project 72 that design was used as a basis for a new design called "Squadron Carrier".

Little if any reliable data is available on this design study.
Purportedly the main role of the "Squadron Carrier" would have been to support amphibious operations.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

OAVuxyy.png

 

 


Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 33,800 standard tons
Length: 260 meters
Beam: 30 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: 32 knots
knots/endurance: 6,900 nautical miles at 18 knots
Complement: ?
Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 32x 45 mm (8x4), 32x 25mm (16x2)
Number of Aircraft: 76
Catapults: 2
Hanger: 2
Aircraft Elevators: 3
Armor: belt 120 mm, flight deck 50 mm, hangar deck 50 mm, armoured deck 90 mm
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT
The KRONSHTADT was just over 10% complete at the start of the German-USSR war in 1941.
After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV.
This post-1945 design used the post-1936 plans of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which were purloined when the USSR occupied Germany.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

7TD1gQG.png

 

ARJK9l9.png

 

kwQmsMk.png

 

yVRywFF.jpg

 


"24,000 tons Carrier"

Design study date: 1945+
Displacement: 24,000 standard tons
Length: 240 meters
Beam: 22.5 meters
Draught: ? meters
Propulsion: ?
Power of propulsion: ?
Speed: ? knots
knots/endurance: ? nautical miles at ? knots
Complement: ?
Armament: ?
Number of Aircraft: 50
Catapults: ?
Hanger: ?
Aircraft Elevators: ?
Armor: ?
Building yard: -
Laid down: -
Launched: -
Commissioned: -


Project study, none were laid down.
This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

 

XEdIJEY.png

 

Edited by Widar_Thule
  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,585
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,464 posts
10,717 battles

I'll tell you right now the soviet carrier line will consist of the project 1058 carrier deck+BB guns and armor at tier 8 and 10. The tier 10 one will have 20 inch guns with the same flat soviet laser ballistics, the same lolbias accuracy easymode under 16km and of course, the ability to slow down and speed up faster than a destroyer. 

The player will be flying the planes and one of its consumables will be to call upon the carrier's BB guns... which the player must rocket-plane like attack a target and 'drop' signal flares that make the BB guns fire in a radius of that location. Of course, being soviet, they will hit 90% of the time on citadels. 

..and planes will have the ability to regain aircraft on their squadron via a 'heal' ability plus will also carry radar.. because EVERYONE knows the USSR had AWACS systems in their attack aircraft back then.  

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[HINON]
Members
9,003 posts
13,164 battles

Russia looking at their list of operational CVs, colorized

9rXIUsK.png

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,918 battles

Unfortunately, these CVs will be the Farce reworked CVs which I will not play except for the T4 one where I will gladly terrorize T3/T4 players to make their play experience miserable in the hope that the Farce reworked CVs are JUNKED in  favour of the much better old RTS CVs  :cap_like:.

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,220
[SIM]
Members
5,849 posts
9,315 battles
5 minutes ago, Antean said:

Unfortunately, these CVs will be the Farce reworked CVs which I will not play except for the T4 one where I will gladly terrorize T3/T4 players to make their play experience miserable in the hope that the Farce reworked CVs are JUNKED in  favour of the much better old RTS CVs  :cap_like:.

You must be loads of fun at parties. :cap_like:

Thanks for compiling this, OP. I figured that the U.S.S.R did some research on CVs, but didn’t realize that it was this extensive. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[SHPFC]
Members
285 posts
9,470 battles
2 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had some Aircraft Carrier design studies.

Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had not started actual construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

 

The Soviet Union had Aircraft Carrier design studies dating from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953.

The USSR regime had from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953 not started construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion.

This should be all WG needs. Zero carriers built. NO MORE PAPER SHIPS. Russian ship lines have more than enough paper ships. Please WG. No tech line for CV's for Russia. At best Give them a version of the GZ since they did capture it. Other than that. They shouldn't get a Tech Line for Carriers.

 

 

Frosty

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[WOLFC]
Members
545 posts

I know about many of these, and as much as I think they would be a mistake, I have little doubt we'll see them at some point. Kudos to the OP for compiling all the info.

When it comes to new ship lines, my preference (as little importance as it has) would be this:

  1. Japanese Submarines
  2. Italian BBs
  3. Italians DDs
  4.  EU cruisers (read: Mostly Dutch)
  5. RN submarines
  6. Commonwealth cruisers
  7. Pan American DDs
  8. Pan American cruisers
  9. French CVs
  10. Commonwealth CVs
  11. Italian CVs

I left off the 3 lines of subs obviously currently in testing. Only reason IJN submarines are so high is that it feels ridiculous to have Soviet, US, and German subs, and leave them out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[NFJF]
Members
707 posts
11,017 battles
1 hour ago, Skyfaller said:

I'll tell you right now the soviet carrier line will consist of the project 1058 carrier deck+BB guns and armor at tier 8 and 10. The tier 10 one will have 20 inch guns with the same flat soviet laser ballistics, the same lolbias accuracy easymode under 16km and of course, the ability to slow down and speed up faster than a destroyer. 

The player will be flying the planes and one of its consumables will be to call upon the carrier's BB guns... which the player must rocket-plane like attack a target and 'drop' signal flares that make the BB guns fire in a radius of that location. Of course, being soviet, they will hit 90% of the time on citadels. 

..and planes will have the ability to regain aircraft on their squadron via a 'heal' ability plus will also carry radar.. because EVERYONE knows the USSR had AWACS systems in their attack aircraft back then.  

 

I actually think the t10 will have SU-50 stealth fighters and SU-34 "fullbacks" with radar homing anti ship missiles, which will be able to lock on and fire at 150km and hit with 100% accuracy and sink any ship in 1 hit. The SU-50s will be able to sink a DD in 1 strafing run with their cannon and the SU-34s can also be equipped with laser guided bombs with nuclear warheads.The carrier itself will be completely covered in armor, have a main battery of no less than 8x 18inch guns with radar guided fire control, 20 152mm turrets on each side, 100 radar homing surface to air missile launchers located on various points all over the ship,  and hundreds of 57 and 23mm AA guns with radar guided fire control. A hull upgrade will be available to allow space for 20 P700 Granit missiles. There will also be an assembly line below deck which will allow full squadrons to regenerate every 60 seconds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,918 battles
6 hours ago, SkaerKrow said:

You must be loads of fun at parties. :cap_like:

I'm just saying it like it is, SkaerKrow. The CV rework is a FARCE & the Farce reworked T4 CVs ruin that tier play way more than RTS CVs ever did.

Am I against the Farce reworked CVs? Yes. Am I against CVs in this game? No.  Why 'WF' ever removed the RTS CVs - well, that's been a huge mistake by 'WF', imho. :cap_yes:

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,126 posts
7,630 battles
7 hours ago, admiralsexybeast said:

I actually think the t10 will have SU-50 stealth fighters and SU-34 "fullbacks" with radar homing anti ship missiles, which will be able to lock on and fire at 150km and hit with 100% accuracy and sink any ship in 1 hit. The SU-50s will be able to sink a DD in 1 strafing run with their cannon and the SU-34s can also be equipped with laser guided bombs with nuclear warheads.The carrier itself will be completely covered in armor, have a main battery of no less than 8x 18inch guns with radar guided fire control, 20 152mm turrets on each side, 100 radar homing surface to air missile launchers located on various points all over the ship,  and hundreds of 57 and 23mm AA guns with radar guided fire control. A hull upgrade will be available to allow space for 20 P700 Granit missiles. There will also be an assembly line below deck which will allow full squadrons to regenerate every 60 seconds.  

You are way off base here!!!

This is clearly a description of the tier 6 CV.  :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
908
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,315 posts
6,776 battles
8 hours ago, Nolo_00 said:

I know about many of these, and as much as I think they would be a mistake, I have little doubt we'll see them at some point. Kudos to the OP for compiling all the info.

When it comes to new ship lines, my preference (as little importance as it has) would be this:

  1. Japanese Submarines
  2. Italian BBs
  3. Italians DDs
  4.  EU cruisers (read: Mostly Dutch)
  5. RN submarines
  6. Commonwealth cruisers
  7. Pan American DDs
  8. Pan American cruisers
  9. French CVs
  10. Commonwealth CVs
  11. Italian CVs

I left off the 3 lines of subs obviously currently in testing. Only reason IJN submarines are so high is that it feels ridiculous to have Soviet, US, and German subs, and leave them out.

No. First Soviet CVs, then Soviet Space Ships and after the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
247 posts
9 hours ago, Nolo_00 said:

I know about many of these, and as much as I think they would be a mistake, I have little doubt we'll see them at some point. Kudos to the OP for compiling all the info.

When it comes to new ship lines, my preference (as little importance as it has) would be this:

  1. Japanese Submarines
  2. Italian BBs
  3. Italians DDs
  4.  EU cruisers (read: Mostly Dutch)
  5. RN submarines
  6. Commonwealth cruisers
  7. Pan American DDs
  8. Pan American cruisers
  9. French CVs
  10. Commonwealth CVs
  11. Italian CVs

I left off the 3 lines of subs obviously currently in testing. Only reason IJN submarines are so high is that it feels ridiculous to have Soviet, US, and German subs, and leave them out.

I bet we will get within the next 10 lines releases(assuming additional CV lines aren't added at odd tiers), at least..... a Soviet CV, 2nd BB, and 3rd DD(perhaps CA)lines. Unrelated point but I wonder if there is scope for a Pan American BB line, clearly into mid-tiers there would be  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,837
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

I'm finding it hard to summon any excitement for Soviet carriers... I mean... 

I'm all for content and keeping things fresh but this is seems really far out in fantasy land.

I'm sure they will be "balanced" and if they are interesting I'm sure I'll end up playing a few at lower tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[KREW]
Members
88 posts
12,037 battles

I'm picturing all the CV's being Kremlin's with vertical takeoff aircraft. :cap_haloween:Sorry Happa, I couldn't resist.

Edited by Imperial_Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,239
[BWC]
Beta Testers
2,112 posts
8,173 battles

Excellent work, OP!

 

That said, I don't understand why we are supposedly getting a Carrier line for a nation that (during the period WOWS covers) didn't have any CVs, didn't want any CVs, and never did any practical work to produce CVs.  As pointedly demonstrated in the sinking of the Graf Zeppelin, the USSR deliberately chose not to have CVs because they were a land-centered military that wanted Battleships for prestige and fire support for the Army, not a Navy as an actual strategic military force.

 

If we are going down that road, why don't we start including American and Japanese Submersible Battleships, American and British Zeppelin Aircraft Carriers, and British Habbakuk Indestructable Carriers?  All were drawn up by someone somewhere at some time, and some were even tried, so they must be valid, eh?

 

Seriously, they should keep the Soviet Navy with its decisions in naval shipbuilding.  The USSR had Battleships, so having a paper line of 'what might have followed' I can sort of accept (even if I think they were implemented with more bias than actual honesty), but giving the USSR and entire line of Carriers when they purposely chose not to have any seems a bit like pandering to the players.  Are we going to give Switzerland a Carrier next? 

 

Edit:  And lest you think I am off in saying the USSR didn't want or believe in CVs, I will simply note that even when they chose to build something like a CV, they still couldn't bring themselves to fully accept the concept, building instead half-carrier half-missile cruiser hybrids well into modern times.  It was only at the end of the USSR that they finally came up with a full CV (and then sold off all but one after the USSR ceased to exist).

Edited by Jakob_Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[WOLFC]
Members
545 posts
4 hours ago, Bluemoon51 said:

I bet we will get within the next 10 lines releases(assuming additional CV lines aren't added at odd tiers), at least..... a Soviet CV, 2nd BB, and 3rd DD(perhaps CA)lines. Unrelated point but I wonder if there is scope for a Pan American BB line, clearly into mid-tiers there would be  

A Pan American BB line would be difficult, for the same reasons an EU line would be. Nearly all of the countries involved dropped Battleship development at the dreadnought era. So anything after ~1915-1920 would have to be all paper, if the designs existed at all.

Amusingly enough, probably the easiest line from my list to implement would be the Commonwealth CV line. Both Canada and Australia both had actual carriers in the time period the game covers, and not all of them are sister ships to the current RN CVs. Could lead to some interesting mash-ups, as they also flew American aircraft types.  

Another line I just realized I left off would be Commonwealth DDs. Could slot those in somewhere around EU and Commonwealth cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
740
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,046 posts
52,220 battles

TLDR

Russian CVs will be coming soon.  And since they are Russian, they will be 'balanced'.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
89 posts
3 hours ago, Jakob_Knight said:

Excellent work, OP!

 

That said, I don't understand why we are supposedly getting a Carrier line for a nation that (during the period WOWS covers) didn't have any CVs, didn't want any CVs, and never did any practical work to produce CVs.  As pointedly demonstrated in the sinking of the Graf Zeppelin, the USSR deliberately chose not to have CVs because they were a land-centered military that wanted Battleships for prestige and fire support for the Army, not a Navy as an actual strategic military force.

 

If we are going down that road, why don't we start including American and Japanese Submersible Battleships, American and British Zeppelin Aircraft Carriers, and British Habbakuk Indestructable Carriers?  All were drawn up by someone somewhere at some time, and some were even tried, so they must be valid, eh?

 

Seriously, they should keep the Soviet Navy with its decisions in naval shipbuilding.  The USSR had Battleships, so having a paper line of 'what might have followed' I can sort of accept (even if I think they were implemented with more bias than actual honesty), but giving the USSR and entire line of Carriers when they purposely chose not to have any seems a bit like pandering to the players.  Are we going to give Switzerland a Carrier next?  

 

Edit:  And lest you think I am off in saying the USSR didn't want or believe in CVs, I will simply note that even when they chose to build something like a CV, they still couldn't bring themselves to fully accept the concept, building instead half-carrier half-missile cruiser hybrids well into modern times.  It was only at the end of the USSR that they finally came up with a full CV (and then sold off all but one after the USSR ceased to exist).

 

Thanks.

 

The USSR only inherited a few hopelessly obsolete Imperial Russian Battleships. The USSR however was NEVER able to build Battleships, they did not have the technology, the experts, the industry, the capacity. So yes to low Tier Imperial Russian Battleships, but no to USSR Battleships in WOWS. And that goes double for Imperial Russian Carriers and USSR Carriers. They simply were beyond the means of Imperial Russia and the USSR in the time frame of WOWS. Wanting to build something and being actually able to build something are two different things.

 

A paper design study can be turned into something "superior", as long as you do not have to actually develop the technology to actually build it. In a paper design study one can calculate and state anything, a paper design study is never put to the test unless detailed blueprints and the technology required to actually build a Carrier is actually developed and produced. So a paper design can easily state having a propulsion with 300,000 horsepower, the key issue however is: does a country actually have the knowledge, industry and experts to create a reliable 300,000 horsepower propulsion of the size and dimensions listed in the paper design. If that is not the case then the paper design is anecdotal at best and utterly worthless at worst. 

 

For example the 200,000 horsepower propulsion system for GRAF ZEPPELIN (then the most powerful in the world) was first built and housed ashore in a test environment that had the exact dimensions of the one aboard the Carrier. The actual propulsion system for GRAF ZEPPELIN was thereafter built and installed in the ship. Thus the German navy first actually built and tested the propulsion system ashore for the planned eight Carriers of the GZ class, additionally that test system would then be used to train the crews of the planned eight Carriers before their ships were actually finished. The same was done with the GZ hanger, elevators, catapults etc. To my knowledge the USSR never ever got that far with any of their paper Carrier designs, at least not before the 1960s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×