Udaloi Question

[_Nyarlathotep_]

Curious about this DD design. I know it states in the description it is project 35, however, I have not found any information beyond this. Does anyone know if it was just one design drawing of many, a ship planned for construction canceled for whatever reason, or something else entirely? The way the Russian\Soviet DD jump around makes it difficult to sometimes where ships went chronologically, i.e. Kiev before Tashkent, Ognevoi before both.

[thegamefilmguruman]

Here's some stuff about the Russian DD tree
https://www.reddit.c...evealed/cvdsj0b

Specifically relating to Udaloi
https://ru.wikipedia...осцы_проекта_35

 

[Xero_Snake]

Curious about this DD design. I know it states in the description it is project 35, however, I have not found any information beyond this. Does anyone know if it was just one design drawing of many, a ship planned for construction canceled for whatever reason, or something else entirely? The way the Russian\Soviet DD jump around makes it difficult to sometimes where ships went chronologically, i.e. Kiev before Tashkent, Ognevoi before both.

 

Project 48 - Kiev was a scaled-down version of Tashkent to suit the Soviet shipbuilding capacity at that time when they couldn't build more Tashkent. Also take note that two Kiev-class were partially-built before the war broke out that forced the entire shipbuilding sector to place most project on hold:

 

Kiev - 50% complete, Yerevan - 25% complete

 

Keep in mind that Ognevoy wasn't related to the likes of Kiev and Tashkent - a destroyer leaders. Project 30 - Ognevoy was built to be better than Project 7 - Gnevny and Project 7U - Storozhevoy/Soobraitenzyy in many way. Sadly, only one was completed using two B-2LM turrets salvaged from Tashkent. And so, the rest were resumed as Project 30-K in a revised design, just like what happened to Project 68 - Chapayev.

 

Project 35 - Udaloy was at least officially named and two were ready to be laid down. It was to be a large destroyer class, somewhat a tad distinctive from Kiev and Tashkent in terms of concept. Unfortunately, the war prevented Project 35 from coming into fruition.

[_Nyarlathotep_]

Thanks for the help. So, if I am understanding things correctly:

 

Gnevny was further refined into the Ognevoi.

 

Tashkent, an Italian designed ship was transformed into the Kiev as a simplified ship more in line with Soviet construction capabilities.

 

The Udaloi was a completely separate DL design that was nearly ready to be built, German invasion intervened and no effort was made to resurrect the ships after the war ended. And the Project 47 was still under design when the war began, resumed after the war, only to be determined that the resources required and the dating of the design would not meet the current needs of the Red Navy?

 

Thanks again for the help. Definitely seems like there is a lot of room for research on Stalin's big fleet plans, or if the research is there, it is not accessible to me.

[Guest Ainen]

 

Project 48 - Kiev was a scaled-down version of Tashkent to suit the Soviet shipbuilding capacity at that time when they couldn't build more Tashkent. Also take note that two Kiev-class were partially-built before the war broke out that forced the entire shipbuilding sector to place most project on hold:

Kiev(project 48) is more or less Minsk-class(project 38) with more progressive armament(3x2 in turrets with much improved arcs instead of 5x1 deck mounts). 

 

Also, it's worth remembering what while both "leaders" - they weren't built to perform the same task.

All "local" leaders were intended precisely to lead destroyers in action, since project 1(Leningrad class) was initially born as a way to affordably extend usability of remaining WW1-vintage Novik-class, and thus somehow delay urgency of new destroyer construction. 

While project 1 ships weren't really a success, - Idea of leader became popular, and line was continued for new destroyers.

 

Tashkent was fleet scout, not just leader. All she could do as leader - Kiev also could at much lesser displacement and cost.

What Kievs and other soviet leaders could not do was ability to conitiously cruise at high speeds(Tashkent cruise range is >5000nm@20 knots(!!!), x2 of Kiev-class at same speed), as well as extended dash times, both in fuel and engine power. This simply wasn't necessary for leader(destroyers had more or less same with Kiev).

 

Other than her, very few ships in the world could do such dashes at all, and ones which could(for example Fantasque class with raid speed of 37 knots) - couldn't nearly match her range.

 

The Udaloi was a completely separate DL design that was nearly ready to be built

 Udaloi is from very different heritage.

Her class wasn't class of leaders(DL), but of destroyers(DD), intended to be fully capable of escorting emerging "blue water"(in modern terms) battle fleet, and truly modern one.

Yes, very big ones, but nevertheless.

It's rather obvious from their designed range and slightly lowered cruise speed and increased range, 6000 nmi@16 knots, resembling something between japanese and american destroyers, not any previous soviet ones.

 

her actual tasks were(from design request):

 

1.Performing mainly nighttime, but also daytime torpedo attacks and mining.

2.Reconnaissance and watch for fleet at sea.

3.Escort service for fleet in open ocean thatre.

4.Fulfilling role of fleet AA escort.

5.Raiding operations in "fresh"* conditions.

 

*in bad weather.

 

I.e. Kiev class wasn't her ancestor in any way, in many ways she's "clean sheet" design, with very obvious american and german influece.

Problem was what Kiev class essentialy wasn't suited to lead them. Ships already on slipways were continued(they were clearly suitable leaders for Ognevoy class and someone had to perform this), but that's it.

[Xero_Snake]

Kiev(project 48) is more or less Minsk-class(project 38) with more progressive armament(3x2 in turrets with much improved arcs instead of 5x1 deck mounts). 

 

Also, it's worth remembering what while both "leaders" - they weren't built to perform the same task.

All "local" leaders were intended precisely to lead destroyers in action, since project 1(Leningrad class) was initially born as a way to affordably extend usability of remaining WW1-vintage Novik-class, and thus somehow delay urgency of new destroyer construction. 

While project 1 ships weren't really a success, - Idea of leader became popular, and line was continued for new destroyers.

 

Tashkent was fleet scout, not just leader. All she could do as leader - Kiev also could at much lesser displacement and cost.

What Kievs and other soviet leaders could not do was ability to conitiously cruise at high speeds(Tashkent cruise range is >5000nm@20 knots(!!!), x2 of Kiev-class at same speed), as well as extended dash times, both in fuel and engine power. This simply wasn't necessary for leader(destroyers had more or less same with Kiev).

 

Other than her, very few ships in the world could do such dashes at all, and ones which could(for example Fantasque class with raid speed of 37 knots) - couldn't nearly match her range.

 

 

As written from the in-game description, noted. I wonder, though, why did people tend to relate Kiev with Tashkent if you say so? I was stubbornly thought that Kiev has some traits from Tashkent because of that. *scratching head*

 

Hang on, was it because Kiev had exactly three propellers like Leningrad/Minsk have?

 

Very well, I learned something in which I overlooked all those time:

• Project 1 - Leningrad was a "stop-gap" to lead the remaining Novik-series, as well as a foundation to expand the destroyer/flotilla leaders concepts
• How about Project 38 - Minsk (modernized Leningrad)? Could it has a capability to lead a handful of Project 7 destroyers?
• Project 48 - Kiev turned out to be a deeply upgraded Minsk with some Tashkent traits, yet still hardly enough to keep up with Tashkent's parameters. If she wasn't suited to lead DDs, then Kiev was an "intermediate/transition" in between destroyer and destroyer leader + large destroyer
• Project 20I - Tashkent was designed to be a scout within a fleet as well as a leader for the recon flotilla, and has a potential stepping stone to develop a blue-water navy

 

At this rate, can Kievs support Tashkent from the rear when they come along together with a handful of other destroyers like Gnevny-class and the likes within the recon flotilla? I bet to could work out great, like the big sister helping the younger ones. Nevertheless, I love the idea of both Kiev and Tashkent tag along.

 

For Khabarovsk, I heard it was the pre-war Project 24, yet the design largely based from Project 47. I wonder why? But all I know is that she was an entirely different design from Kiev + Tashkent (DLs) and Udaloy (large DD). Khab was designed to be like Capitani Romani - a large armored destroyer leader as well a small air defense cruiser that would then further led the development of postwar MLK-series PVO cruiser. Because of Khabarovsk, I finally get the idea why the current DD line is as if "gun-focus".

 

What is "dashes/dash times", by the way?

 

 Udaloi is from very different heritage.

Her class wasn't class of leaders(DL), but of destroyers(DD), intended to be fully capable of escorting emerging "blue water"(in modern terms) battle fleet, and truly modern one.

Yes, very big ones, but nevertheless.

It's rather obvious from their designed range and slightly lowered cruise speed, 6000 nmi@16 knots, resembling something between japanese and american destroyers, not any previous soviet ones.

 

her actual tasks were(from design request):

 

1.Performing mainly nighttime, but also daytime torpedo attacks and mining.

2.Reconnaissance and watch for fleet at sea.

3.Escort service for fleet in open ocean thatre.

4.Fulfilling role of fleet AA escort.

5.Raiding operations in "fresh"* conditions.

 

*in bad weather.

 

I.e. Kiev class wasn't her ancestor in any way, in many ways she's "clean sheet" design, with american and german influece.

Problem was what Kiev class essentialy wasn't suited to lead them. Ships already on slipways were continued(they were clearly suitable leaders for Ognevoy class and someone had to perform this), but that's it.

 

So would you say likewise to the postwar Project 40 large destroyer corresponding to Project 35 - Udaloy?

[Guest Ainen]

 I was stubbornly thought that Kiev has some traits from Tashkent because of that.

They obviously do, but not nearly as much as people tend to think("worsened Tashkent to be produced locally").

 

By the way, Udaloi actually inherited much more from Tashkent, and probably could even more if competing project was to be chosen:

Where was competition between two design bereaus, TSKB-32 and own berau of factory №190(modern day norther shipyard, Saint Petersburg), and project of the latter was directly based on Tashkent, including hull lines; TSKB-32 won, though.

Nevertheless, she has lots of Tashkent traits, namely - continious storm corridor(continious level of superstructure below torpedo tubes), for example.(many more innocations on technical levels)

 

• Project 1 - Leningrad was a "stop-gap" to lead the remaining Novik-series, as well as a foundation to expand the destroyer/flotilla leaders concepts
• How about Project 38 - Minsk (modernized Leningrad)? Could it has a capability to lead a handful of Project 7 destroyers?
• Project 48 - Kiev turned out to be a deeply upgraded Minsk with some Tashkent traits, yet still hardly enough to keep up with Tashkent's parameters. If she wasn't suited to lead DDs, then Kiev was an "intermediate/transition" in between destroyer and destroyer leader + large destroyer

 First two - yes.

Third - both yes and no. There was continous infighting between two projects(in Soviet Union), from the very idea to order new leader from foreig shipyards, up to a level clearly visible in documentation.

Proponents of project 48 eventually won(projected Tashkent half-sisters of project 20I were killed by presumed "ability of pr.48 leaders to perform necessary tasks"(refrased quote), but not before Tashkent herself was built.

And it isn't what Tashkent was unsuitable - she was considered exsessive for this task by too many.

 

At this rate, can Kievs support Tashkent from the rear when they come along together with a handful of other destroyers like Gnevny-class and the likes within the recon flotilla? I bet to could work out great, like the big sister helping the younger ones. Nevertheless, I love the idea of both Kiev and Tashkent tag along.

Well, very well posible.

But it's worth noting what destroyer leader operates with her destroyers, attached and organically(structurally) included. They can perform different tasks and be deployed to different parts of fleet formation(including forward ones) - but they're a unit nevertheless.

 

Long range scout or(better) scouts can and shell be deployed intependently(and extended far away from actual screen) - precisely to increase "viewing range", for example disposed ahead of actual forward screen, outside of visual range of main force van.

 

So would you say likewise to the postwar Project 40 large destroyer corresponding to Project 35 - Udaloy?

 project 40 was new development, which came when it became obvious what wartime experience can;t be easily included in project 35:

"Udaloy" was both too late and too early: too late to radically adapt, too early to bother saving it since not much was already done in actual steel.

 

[Xero_Snake]

-snip-

 

 

I need time to digest while doing a little bit of homework. Currently upgrading my OS, so it could take a long time before getting back to you. It'll be another lengthy post of mine.

[Xero_Snake]

By the way, Udaloi actually inherited much more from Tashkent, and probably could even more if competing project was to be chosen:

Where was competition between two design bereaus, TSKB-32 and own berau of factory №190(modern day norther shipyard, Saint Petersburg), and project of the latter was directly based on Tashkent, including hull lines; TSKB-32 won, though.

Nevertheless, she has lots of Tashkent traits, namely - continious storm corridor(continious level of superstructure below torpedo tubes), for example.(many more innocations on technical levels)

 

From what I stumbled across, Udaloy seemed to be based off from American Benson-class and the Soviet sketch version of Mahan-class both, which in turn carried forward to Draft TsKB-32. The in-game incarnation is true to the design development procedure, with TsKB-32 technical components and parameters selected in the end, and has Tashkent's traits in terms of overall architecture including the "storm corridor". Then, she would have become the first Soviet destroyer to be armed with B-2-U universal artillery/dual-purpose guns like the Fletcher-class.

 

By the way, what has Japanese destroyer involved in Project 35 - Udaloy?

 

Third - both yes and no. There was continous infighting between two projects(in Soviet Union), from the very idea to order new leader from foreig shipyards, up to a level clearly visible in documentation.

Proponents of project 48 eventually won(projected Tashkent half-sisters of project 20I were killed by presumed "ability of pr.48 leaders to perform necessary tasks"(refrased quote), but not before Tashkent herself was built.

And it isn't what Tashkent was unsuitable - she was considered exsessive for this task by too many.

 

Between Kiev and Tashkent, huh?

 

Initial parameters for Project 48 turned out to be inferior to Project 1 - Leningrad while trying to keep it as light as possible twice, until they decided to extend the standard displacement constraint to 2350 tons.

 

Interestingly, both Ognevoy and Kiev had some correlation in between the two in terms of sharing the same components in different technical parameters ratio of 1.5:1, even though both were different destroyer classes.

 

Another interesting point, was that there also was Project 48-K to be considered in between 1944 - 1950 to complete both Kiev and Yerevan, and then to be reclassified as "destroyers" - in the same league as Project 30-K and Project 35. So Kiev was indeed a transition in between destroyer and leader classes. They even considering to give BL-109 DP guns for those two, yet seem to make them top-heavy.

 

 Well, very well posible.

But it's worth noting what destroyer leader operates with her destroyers, attached and organically(structurally) included. They can perform different tasks and be deployed to different parts of fleet formation(including forward ones) - but they're a unit nevertheless.

 

Long range scout or(better) scouts can and shell be deployed intependently(and extended far away from actual screen) - precisely to increase "viewing range", for example disposed ahead of actual forward screen, outside of visual range of main force van.

 

Example like Tashkent's group leading the front-line interception while Kievs' group gather intel from the other side and provide fire support from the rear could make an intriguing idea of a light naval commando force. Yet still are working as a single unit, whilst could limited operate autonomously in divisions and maintain communications between each other.

 

Overall, such core ideas of flotilla leaders do play a significant role in blue-water navy development of their own parts. I'm sure this can help me for my research studies, really an insightful topic.

[Guest Ainen]

From what I stumbled across, Udaloy seemed to be based off from American Benson-class and the Soviet sketch version of Mahan-class both, which in turn carried forward to Draft TsKB-32. The in-game incarnation is true to the design development procedure, with TsKB-32 technical components and parameters selected in the end, and has Tashkent's traits in terms of overall architecture including the "storm corridor". Then, she would have become the first Soviet destroyer to be armed with B-2-U universal artillery/dual-purpose guns like the Fletcher-class

 Neither, USSR delegation hasn't got US own DD drawings.

There war Gibbs&Cox design with 3x2 5" SP turrets(of Porter and Sommers), drawn to soviet specification(which was main point of USSR interest, and not proposed bizarre battleship carriers).

It somewhat resembles Porter class, with simillar to her(or Mahan's) pre-rebuild "diamond"-formed wide bridge.

Soviet delegation requested DP main battery and fire control, but Gibbs was prohibited to sell it to USSR.

 

p.s.yes, Udaloy was projected to have fully DP-capable main armament and fire control. She was specifically expected to perform AA ship duties.

 

p.s. japanese ships have no relation. But their(and US) destroyers range falls in more or less same diapason with Udaloys, unlike previous soviet destroyers, which had much shorter range(but at high 20-knot cruise speed).

 

Between Kiev and Tashkent, huh?

 Yes.

 

[Xero_Snake]

 -snip-

 

Ah, I found the pre-war Project 24 DL - Khabarovsk from WG wiki and finally get to read through all the drafts' TTX.

Pre-war Project 24 DL - Khabarovsk (Russian)

 

It appears she was supposed to be cruising over 47 knots in max speed, which is insanely fast for a Tashkent-sized 3650-ton DL with much more powerful propulsion system and quite decently-armored. She would have been the fastest DL ever existed, even surpass Le Fantasque in trial top speed.

 

And there is Project 47 DL, which look more like Capitani Romani-type cruiser

Project 47 DL (Russian)

I'm amazed that Project 47 did has the postwar design iteration. Did it match the Project 40's concept, I wonder?

 

Nevertheless, both were inspired from Capitani Romani-class intriguing idea, while there probably be a few Italian engineers assisted those design drafts. It's interesting to learn that either a destroyer leader or a small-sized light cruiser can become a flotilla leader. Can be confusing for those who couldn't see pass nor understand this abstract concept, especially those who take for granted that DLs are a small CLs that go faster. Though, why some people thought such a way? Did the Soviets back then really treat leaders as a light cruiser? Was it deliberate? I doubt the concept was created by accident.