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

Tier IX Premium Soviet VMF Destroyer suggestion: Project 48-K – Yerevan

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5,160 posts
60 battles

Tier IX Premium Soviet VMF Destroyer Suggestion: Project 48-K – Yerevan

kiev-3.jpg

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.

%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8B_%D0

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.

%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81_%D0

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!

Edited by Xero_Snake
  • Cool 6
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,756 posts
11,770 battles

This concept is rather neat. However, if Yerevan gets access to Radar, she shouldn't get access to smokes. And since Yerevan I'd 3kts slower and 400 tons heavier, maybe a 10-15% tighter turning circle to represent the ship's improved Sea keeping aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
1 hour ago, Crokodone said:

This concept is rather neat. However, if Yerevan gets access to Radar, she shouldn't get access to smokes. And since Yerevan I'd 3kts slower and 400 tons heavier, maybe a 10-15% tighter turning circle to represent the ship's improved Sea keeping aspects.

Indeed.

As far as consumables are concerned, I think it's up to the devs to decide. I can merely give some ideas. Maybe smoke & radar being a toggle options are not a bad idea either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,070 posts
11,663 battles

I highly doubt they’ll release two T9’s of the same class and nation, back to back.  We are missing a T8 Russian DD though, so.  There’s that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
20 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

I highly doubt they’ll release two T9’s of the same class and nation, back to back.  We are missing a T8 Russian DD though, so.  There’s that.

I hope you're not mistaken the Kiev-class with the Tashkent-class, when both are clearly different from each other. Even though I came across with a leaked Tier X R-10 DL recently, which is unlikely to be a Kiev-class either. Frankly speaking, though, that seem to be a coincidence to me before I posted this.

Plus, I intend to suggest Yerevan as a potential Tier IX premium DD available in Armory is because it has so much potential for a Kiev-class reworked to Pr. 48-K - repurposed from a destroyer leader to a destroyer, it would be wasted to see that being a missed opportunity. But still, no harm to give this a try.

In fact, WG has a history of sometimes using some Soviet/Russian ships as "test-beds/guinea pigs" for other ships from other nations to become feasible in high-tier gameplay that were initially thought to be impossible. If it wasn't for Ognevoy on Tier VIII, we wouldn't have Friesland & Swedish DDs.

In this case, perhaps Yerevan would be a fitting test subject for other two Soviet DDs that are yet to make an appearance - Pr. 30-bis Skoryy/Smeltiy & Pr. 56 Kotlin/Spokoinyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[1IF]
Banned
436 posts
1,426 battles

No! WoWS does not need more USSR ships completed after WW2. What WoWS needs are more pre-WW2 & WW2 ships from other places (Real ships).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,058 posts
4,376 battles
1 hour ago, Antean said:

No! WoWS does not need more USSR ships completed after WW2. What WoWS needs are more pre-WW2 & WW2 ships from other places (Real ships).

Slight problem with that. Wargaming makes more money selling high-tier premium ships than they do low tier "real" ships.

 In reality, Imperial Russian and Soviet shipbuilders weren't that good, in fact, they only became halfway decent around 1935 and REALLY good in the 1950s and 60s, and most of the historical ships were mediocre ( Chapayev and Sverdlov class excepted, as well as Project 1 and 7 ) at best, and absolute crap at worst. 

Therefore, there would be no reason for low-tier historical ships to be sold at a bargain price, when they could just pull something from the Soviet Design Bureaus ( the designs were real, it's just that they were either too impractical, or, in the case of the Project 23 ( Sovetsky Soyuz ), hampered by the war ), and sell it for mega-dollaridoos.

-Shrayes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
1 hour ago, Antean said:

No! WoWS does not need more USSR ships completed after WW2. What WoWS needs are more pre-WW2 & WW2 ships from other places (Real ships).

Kiev-class was a WWII-era destroyer leader & was at least half-built, just saying. This one was planned to be fitted with postwar technology available, alongside with Chapayev, Ognevoy etc. Even though those assets ended up redirect to other ship project like the Skoryy-class.

For goodness sake, could you guys learn how to read properly? It's tiresome to deal with lazy people.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[NMKJT]
Members
2,680 posts
3 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

For goodness sake, could you guys learn how to read properly? It's tiresome to deal with lazy people.

A lot of people see 'Russian' or one of the other labels for it, and immediately lose that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,070 posts
11,663 battles
1 hour ago, Xero_Snake said:

I hope you're not mistaken the Kiev-class with the Tashkent-class, when both are clearly different from each other. Even though I came across with a leaked Tier X R-10 DL recently, which is unlikely to be a Kiev-class either. Frankly speaking, though, that seem to be a coincidence to me before I posted this.

Plus, I intend to suggest Yerevan as a potential Tier IX premium DD available in Armory is because it has so much potential for a Kiev-class reworked to Pr. 48-K - repurposed from a destroyer leader to a destroyer, it would be wasted to see that being a missed opportunity. But still, no harm to give this a try.

In fact, WG has a history of sometimes using some Soviet/Russian ships as "test-beds/guinea pigs" for other ships from other nations to become feasible in high-tier gameplay that were initially thought to be impossible. If it wasn't for Ognevoy on Tier VIII, we wouldn't have Friesland & Swedish DDs.

In this case, perhaps Yerevan would be a fitting test subject for other two Soviet DDs that are yet to make an appearance - Pr. 30-bis Skoryy/Smeltiy & Pr. 56 Kotlin/Spokoinyy

Nuuuunununu, your mistaken, my bad.  I meant Russian Tier 8 premium.  Not comparing the two, I know the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
11 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

A lot of people see 'Russian' or one of the other labels for it, and immediately lose that.

Such as the WOKE that knows no bound. They only react to a taboo stimuli in an allergic reaction, when authentic information tells nothing to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[SCOM]
Members
187 posts
9,021 battles
On 7/11/2020 at 8:39 AM, Xero_Snake said:

I hope you're not mistaken the Kiev-class with the Tashkent-class, when both are clearly different from each other. Even though I came across with a leaked Tier X R-10 DL recently, which is unlikely to be a Kiev-class either. 

I had one of those R-10 on my team last night.  Looks like it uses some type of dual purpose version of the 130, its different than any of the other 130s for the RU DDs.  It had better AA than the other 2 T10 DD too.  The rest of the stats look like they fall between the Khaba and the Groz.  Semi usable torps, fast speed, decent guns and 7 something base detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
12 hours ago, Patosentado said:

I don't understand the OP, he is describing Kiev, Tier VIII in the line.

Not at all just about Kiev. If you read the entire article, it's about a Kiev-class DL repurposed to a large DD like Udaloy, but with postwar tech & weapons

5 hours ago, Wanturskul said:

I had one of those R-10 on my team last night.  Looks like it uses some type of dual purpose version of the 130, its different than any of the other 130s for the RU DDs.  It had better AA than the other 2 T10 DD too.  The rest of the stats look like they fall between the Khaba and the Groz.  Semi usable torps, fast speed, decent guns and 7 something base detection.

I saw a leaked pic & I'm under an impression that R-10 could be what Tashkent would become if she was salvaged with her hull intact, recovered & overhauled with postwar weapons.

That 130mm DP guns are similar to the one fitted on Moskva, Stalingrad & Kremlin. The other 130mm variants of Project MLK (which Smolensk came from) also designed to have those twin DP guns too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,053
[ARGSY]
Members
20,158 posts
14,340 battles
On 7/11/2020 at 9:56 AM, Crokodone said:

However, if Yerevan gets access to Radar, she shouldn't get access to smokes.

For better or worse, there's precedent for having both together in USS Black, though being a steel ship until recently has served to keep the numbers down (when she comes out for coal, that will be another matter). Plus the Black gives up things in other areas (like her torpedoes, which hit like H-bombs but are towed by narcoleptic sea snails).

And if you don't like the fact that the Black exists as-is in game, you might think about why they chose the ship with DD pennant number 666 for that fit-out (and gave her subtle flames-of-Hell patterns on her camo). :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,756 posts
11,770 battles
4 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

For better or worse, there's precedent for having both together in USS Black, though being a steel ship until recently has served to keep the numbers down (when she comes out for coal, that will be another matter). Plus the Black gives up things in other areas (like her torpedoes, which hit like H-bombs but are towed by narcoleptic sea snails).

And if you don't like the fact that the Black exists as-is in game, you might think about why they chose the ship with DD pennant number 666 for that fit-out (and gave her subtle flames-of-Hell patterns on her camo). :cap_haloween:

Of all the sensors and consumables introduced, i find Radat the least impactful. Hydro and smoke are far more common and significant in both performance and utility.

Smoke in addition to radar should have always been a USN DD trait. With Radar an option fo all USN and RN ship's  starting at t8.

Because let's face it This is 20th century naval warfare real and imagined. Every warship should have +6 consumables to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
12 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Of all the sensors and consumables introduced, i find Radat the least impactful. Hydro and smoke are far more common and significant in both performance and utility.

Smoke in addition to radar should have always been a USN DD trait. With Radar an option fo all USN and RN ship's  starting at t8.

Because let's face it This is 20th century naval warfare real and imagined. Every warship should have +6 consumables to manage.

Well, hydro has a longer duration than a radar. So having a radar with short duration don't mean anything too bad now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,160 posts
60 battles
19 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

For better or worse, there's precedent for having both together in USS Black, though being a steel ship until recently has served to keep the numbers down (when she comes out for coal, that will be another matter). Plus the Black gives up things in other areas (like her torpedoes, which hit like H-bombs but are towed by narcoleptic sea snails).

And if you don't like the fact that the Black exists as-is in game, you might think about why they chose the ship with DD pennant number 666 for that fit-out (and gave her subtle flames-of-Hell patterns on her camo). :cap_haloween:

Speaking of camo, given that Yerevan is a capital city of Armenia, perhaps Yerevan would get a camo in Armenian flag color of red, blue & orange.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×