|Posted this in another thread to rip one of the "russia strong" crowd but would actually like some answers.
Does anyone find Soviet naval architecture to be incomprehensible? I look at their vessels and wonder what they were thinking. Here's a few I can't understand:
Krivak: Guns in back? Why two turrets instead of one? Why only guns in back with missiles in front? Why not go for 360 degree coverage from both? If you can't afford that why pay for two turrets...unless the turret is so unreliable...
Kara and Kresta: What are the wing turrets doing other than providing a nice magazine that is easily accessible to enemy weapons?
Sovremmenny: Steam? Really, you're kidding right? Ok. And the twin 130mm guns that dominate the ship? I guess those are ok because they were for fire support.
Slava: Same as Krivak. With such a big expensive ship why not provide 360 degree coverage?
Moskva class hull shape.
Kiev class: Gee, the Hyuga and Ise were so instrumental in the Japanese victory in the Pacific I guess we should build a modern version.