Iankov's Torpedo Battleship

[Skygunner]

If you can read russian please by all means finish offf what I can not.

 

 

 

This is a ship that's been with me for some time, however due to a language barrier I've never known everything about it, at least that there is to know.   What I do know is that it was designed in 1913 by P. V. Iankov

 

Rated as a battleship, it is rather unique.

 

Displacement  23,000t 28knots

12 - 7in/52

84 - 450mm Torpedo Tubes

 

Armour (Values may be wrong, as I can't read russian)

Decks : 20 + 20 (most likely means 20 mm decks)   75mm overtop of machines and magazine.

Belt: 300mm amidships (over vitals such as magazines and machinery)  63mm fore and aft

Turret: 175mm (probably inaccurate..)

Barbettes : 300mm

CT: 450mm

 

 

 

Designed at a time when submerged TT were not only common, but standard on all large warships,   traditionally only 1 or 2 were carried P and S in case the opposing battle line strayed close.  Dedicated torpedo attacks were made by small torpedo boats or destroyers, capable of charging forward at the opposing ships, lease their salvo then make a hasty retreat, depending on their speed and small size to survive.  I wouldn't' be surprised if this was done in game by destroyers against battleships.

 

Although armed with cannon, this ships primary weapon is indeed the torpedo,  with 42 tubes per broadside it.  If you know of the Japanese Kuma Class cruisers Oi, and Kitakami, those two only ever carried 40 tubes.  In that regard this design carries more torpedoes, however,  the torpedo is considerably different.  Most likely the standard 450mm TT of the Russian Navy,  its range is only around 3000 yards with a 96kg charge at 28knots.  

 

It should also be noted that it has a very early attempt at Torpedo protection in the form of a double wall.  It works the same way as a bulge would however since it's rather small and not filled with anything, it's not as effective as proper bulging.

 

How it would have been used can be up to debate.  So feel free to discuss,   There is more information on it, however the book it is in is...ungodly, expensive....fortunately, the Devs probably can get information easier than I.   Will we see it in game?  Well,  dunno.   It's the equivalent of a floating shotgun,  even a WWII era torpedo bulge wouldn't' be able to protect against the sheer volume of torps.   The ship is moderately quick and rather well protected against all but very heavy caliber guns Once we know more about how torpedos will be balanced in game, it'd be easier to judge how such a ship would perform.

[VioletZer0]

Practically the definition of awesome but impractical.

 

Seriously, 42 torps. Imagine seeing all of those that come at you.

 

But good luck closing the distance on any target that won't blow you the hell apart in a matter of moments. Too bad there are no MWDs in this game.

[nasinater]

That looks pretty cool..but yeah..would hate to be on the receiving side of all those torps.

[xthetenth]

Hmm, I like the US sketches of a torpedo battleship that carried a main battery of torpedoes and spent the weight of a main battery on being fast and heavily armored better, but unfortunately I don't have my copy of Friedman's US Battleships on hand.

[JeeWeeJ]

Just imagine the wall of torps if this were to be included ingame... 0_o Nice find!!!!

[Mathayus]

84 torpedo tubes? Oo

How many torpedo's did it actualy carry?

 

JeeWeeJ, on 24 September 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Just imagine the wall of torps if this were to be included ingame... 0_o Nice find!!!!

I can already hear people cry OP!

[Haguro]

Better be a good money maker or firing all those torpedoes with no hits could bankrupt you...

[Chiyeko]

Sounds like a all or nothing ship  to me, I stick with guns more ammo to share around :P

[Jracule]

Reminds me of the Japanese Kuma class. 2 of the class recieved 10 quadruple torpedo launchers, 5 per side.

[Mermaid_Witch]

This is a really dumb idea, ESPECIALLY for the time period it was designed for.  Having the torpedo tubes fixed in the hull instead of on traversing mounts means the torpedo tubes have to be aimed using the entire ship, which really limits the effectiveness of the torpedo battery.  Furthermore, 3000 yards at 28 knots is nothing when compared to battleship engagement ranges.  This thing would be taken apart by an enemy if it tried to close to within maximum torpedo range.  Now consider the fact that effective range on those torpedoes (a range at which you could reasonably expect a hit) would be under 1000 yards.  Now let's add in the fact that the ship can't fire a spread without turning the entire ship to swivel the tubes.

 

It MIGHT have worked, but it'd only work once.  After all, it will instantly become a priority target the moment someone notices that the stupidly undergunned battleship is spewing torpedo wakes out of its side.  and at 3000 yards or less, that 300mm of armor would do NOTHING to protect against all but the weakest battleship guns.

[Skygunner]

Mini_Bolo, on 26 September 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

This is a really dumb idea, ESPECIALLY for the time period it was designed for.  Having the torpedo tubes fixed in the hull instead of on traversing mounts means the torpedo tubes have to be aimed using the entire ship, which really limits the effectiveness of the torpedo battery.  Furthermore, 3000 yards at 28 knots is nothing when compared to battleship engagement ranges.  This thing would be taken apart by an enemy if it tried to close to within maximum torpedo range.  Now consider the fact that effective range on those torpedoes (a range at which you could reasonably expect a hit) would be under 1000 yards.  Now let's add in the fact that the ship can't fire a spread without turning the entire ship to swivel the tubes.

It MIGHT have worked, but it'd only work once.  After all, it will instantly become a priority target the moment someone notices that the stupidly undergunned battleship is spewing torpedo wakes out of its side.  and at 3000 yards or less, that 300mm of armor would do NOTHING to protect against all but the weakest battleship guns.

Though in this torpedoes case I am not sure,   the ability to launch a torpedo with a curve is not something modern.  They usually can be set to make a small turn.   Seeing how this particualr torpedo was used up through WWII, I wouldn't be suprised if it or the later version (which this ship could launch) was not capable of also turning in the water.

Hull mounts continue to appear on surface ships for years after this was designed, as late as the H-Class battleship.  Obviously they appear on submarines.

You are aware that a Battleship in 1913 is rather different that a Battleship in the late 1930's yes?

In terms of size it's only a few thousand tons short of  the average battleship being built then, lower to mid 20k tons.   This is most likely because they didn't need to be as heavy..They aren't mounting as heavy guns of a proper BB just lots of torps.

As for armour 300mm is on par with the Brtitish German and American capital ships of the time, and substancially better than the small navies operating battleships.

Just comparing it to Russian ships, the poor Gangut class only has 229mm on a thin belt.   Imperatritsa Mariya class up to 267mm on a much more respectable layout,  and neither the unfinished Imperator Nikolai I or Izmail (or Borodino depending who you ask) Class, come any closer to  Inakovs layout in terms of armour.    These would have been some of the best protected ships of the Russian navy for the time and in line with 1st rate naval thinking in terms of protection.

Do please give the Russians some credit.   These ships are labeled Battleship by their designer but that doesn't mean that they are to take the place of them.  I would certainly hope you don't think that they would run it as a proper capital ship.  Its primary weapon is the torpedo,  it would (should) only be utilized in situations where it would be able to bear its primary argument.  In this regards it would probably be attached to lighter screening forces or cruiser squadrons, she has the speed to flank and enough firepower to harass anything that can keep pace.

The other glorious thing about these ships is that,  like most other ships deigned in this time period, they all had a similar silhouette,   Similar, not the same,  this was done with intent,  that at first glance one may not be able to identify exactly what ship they are looking at.  


The amount of tactics for such a quite fun to think of, especially for a WoWs setting.  Though I doubt such a ship would ever appear,  it would be no question that the two ways to deal with it would be aircraft or long range gunnery.

[Icescreamman]

I'm impressed. Thanks for clarifying the torpedo's capability. Other torpedos of that era were barely faster than the ships that launched them, and of limited range, in many cases less than 1,000 yards.

[KingCamper]

Skygunner, on 24 September 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

If you can read russian please by all means finish offf what I can not.




This is a ship that's been with me for some time, however due to a language barrier I've never known everything about it, at least that there is to know.   What I do know is that it was designed in 1913 by P. V. Iankov

Rated as a battleship, it is rather unique.

Displacement  23,000t 28knots
12 - 7in/52
84 - 450mm Torpedo Tubes

Armour (Values may be wrong, as I can't read russian)
Decks : 20 + 20 (most likely means 20 mm decks)   75mm overtop of machines and magazine.
Belt: 300mm amidships (over vitals such as magazines and machinery)  63mm fore and aft
Turret: 175mm (probably inaccurate..)
Barbettes : 300mm
CT: 450mm



Designed at a time when submerged TT were not only common, but standard on all large warships,   traditionally only 1 or 2 were carried P and S in case the opposing battle line strayed close.  Dedicated torpedo attacks were made by small torpedo boats or destroyers, capable of charging forward at the opposing ships, lease their salvo then make a hasty retreat, depending on their speed and small size to survive.  I wouldn't' be surprised if this was done in game by destroyers against battleships.

Although armed with cannon, this ships primary weapon is indeed the torpedo,  with 42 tubes per broadside it.  If you know of the Japanese Kuma Class cruisers Oi, and Kitakami, those two only ever carried 40 tubes.  In that regard this design carries more torpedoes, however,  the torpedo is considerably different.  Most likely the standard 450mm TT of the Russian Navy,  its range is only around 3000 yards with a 96kg charge at 28knots.  

It should also be noted that it has a very early attempt at Torpedo protection in the form of a double wall.  It works the same way as a bulge would however since it's rather small and not filled with anything, it's not as effective as proper bulging.

How it would have been used can be up to debate.  So feel free to discuss,   There is more information on it, however the book it is in is...ungodly, expensive....fortunately, the Devs probably can get information easier than I.   Will we see it in game?  Well,  dunno.   It's the equivalent of a floating shotgun,  even a WWII era torpedo bulge wouldn't' be able to protect against the sheer volume of torps.   The ship is moderately quick and rather well protected against all but very heavy caliber guns Once we know more about how torpedos will be balanced in game, it'd be easier to judge how such a ship would perform.

Ah - my next ship after my IJN  CL  Kitakami - perfect

[JeeWeeJ]

harneyempire, on 09 October 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Ah - my next ship after my IJN  CL  Kitakami - perfect

Dude this is getting sad...

[Skygunner]

harneyempire, on 09 October 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Ah - my next ship after my IJN  CL  Kitakami - perfect

Unfortunately, KGB already said this design won't be appearing.    Will they change their minds in time....maybe,  but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Hurlbut]

It's friggin' nuts. Fun but yeah no player want to be on receiving end of Fourty-Two torpedoes from a single ship....though I would like to see it as a premium for low tier  :Smile_hiding:

[sheep21]

well a BB can torpedo another BB sucessfuly, albeit very rarely and if the opposition aint moving a hit can be made, I think Rodney actually hit Bismark with one of her submerged tubes. However this is only one very rare instance in very paticular circumstances. I dont like playing devils advocate honestly.  :Smile_bajan2:

[Krusmark]

I will share it again, the Battle of Sunda Strait Feb 28-Mar 1 1942, was a 2 hour night engagement in which 2 heavy cruisers, 1 Brit,1 American, and a bit later a Dutch DD were sunk along with 3 Japanese ships in a school/swarm of 90 torpedos launched by a 20 ship Japanese task force escorting 58 troop transpots/supply ships. They lasted 2 hours in a night action woefully outnumbered dodging about in the dark against the Japanese who were much better at night fighting, more is not always better.

[Crag_r]

Krusmark, on 09 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

I will share it again, the Battle of Sunda Strait Feb 28-Mar 1 1942, was a 2 hour night engagement in which 2 heavy cruisers, 1 Brit,1 American, and a bit later a Dutch DD were sunk along with 3 Japanese ships in a school/swarm of 90 torpedos launched by a 20 ship Japanese task force escorting 58 troop transpots/supply ships. They lasted 2 hours in a night action woefully outnumbered dodging about in the dark against the Japanese who were much better at night fighting, more is not always better.

You will share it wrong again then...

The allied ships consisted of USS Houston an American cruiser, HMAS Perth an Australian light cruiser  and HNLMS Evertsen a Dutch destroyer. against the Japanese fleet of 1 light carrier, 1 seaplane carrier, 5 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 1 minelayer, 58 troopships.

With the 2 allied Cruisers been sunk, and the Dutch ship grounded and later her magazine exploding from fires stared during the battle. The cruiser Mikuma was damaged by the Houston. The destroyer Shirayuki suffered a direct shell hit to her bridge, while Harukaze suffered hits to her bridge, engine room and rudder, from the Perth. Also with 5 Japanese Ships sinking due to friendly fire, mostly due to the inappropriate use of the Long lance torpedo.

[GranTofino]

5 missiles later, ship go boom.

[Krusmark]

Crag_r, on 09 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

You will share it wrong again then...

The allied ships consisted of USS Houston an American cruiser, HMAS Perth an Australian light cruiser  and HNLMS Evertsen a Dutch destroyer. against the Japanese fleet of 1 light carrier, 1 seaplane carrier, 5 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 1 minelayer, 58 troopships.

With the 2 allied Cruisers been sunk, and the Dutch ship grounded and later her magazine exploding from fires stared during the battle. The cruiser Mikuma was damaged by the Houston. The destroyer Shirayuki suffered a direct shell hit to her bridge, while Harukaze suffered hits to her bridge, engine room and rudder, from the Perth. Also with 5 Japanese Ships sinking due to friendly fire, mostly due to the inappropriate use of the Long lance torpedo.

My apologies to the RAN and the rest of the Aussies  I may have offended. Yes I misspoke. The HMAS Perth (D29) was a light cruiser, sorry about that. It was a night  action, on the date specified, and losses...well they have always been a bit sketchy on the IJN side so I used the conservative estimate. All I was saying was that the Perth and Houston dodged in and out of a swarm of torpedoes, didn't claim the IJN was smart about it. I will admit this is a bit embarrassing as I had a great uncle aboard the Houston and have devoured everything I could find on the ABDA period especially the Sunda Straight, twas an honest oversite at 0100 hrs local, again humble apologies to the Men and Families of the Perth.  :Smile_amazed:

[Ariecho]

Krusmark, on 03 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

My apologies to the RAN and the rest of the Aussies  I may have offended. Yes I misspoke. The HMAS Perth (D29) was a light cruiser, sorry about that. It was a night  action, on the date specified, and losses...well they have always been a bit sketchy on the IJN side so I used the conservative estimate. All I was saying was that the Perth and Houston dodged in and out of a swarm of torpedoes, didn't claim the IJN was smart about it. I will admit this is a bit embarrassing as I had a great uncle aboard the Houston and have devoured everything I could find on the ABDA period especially the Sunda Straight, twas an honest oversite at 0100 hrs local, again humble apologies to the Men and Families of the Perth.  :Smile_amazed:

Only those who don't do anything never make mistakes.

[Capcon]

http://www.navweaps....do_Tube_pic.jpg

 

http://www.navweaps....do_Tube_pic.jpg

 

All the dreadnoughts with these underwater tubes had issues with leaks to a greater or lesser extent, or so it seem.

And on the German dreadnoughts the torpedo flat was a significant vulnerability. I see no reason why this would not be true for this ship leaving it as one giant mass of vulnerabilities.

[T3045]

I never new that they had torpedo ships like that. I always thought they fired them from the deck or from the tubs on the front.

[Skygunner]

T3045, on 27 April 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I never new that they had torpedo ships like that. I always thought they fired them from the deck or from the tubs on the front.

they didn't.   Though ships of the era usually had 2 torpedo's on each broadside (underwater),  IIRC the maximum number of underwater tubes on any ship actually built is 6,   however i don't have my books in easy access, so I can't verify.    I'll get an answer to you as sonn as I can however.