Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Soviet Naval Architecture
earlm    5/1/2010 11:40:20 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
WarNerd       5/2/2010 5:59:02 AM
Soviet ships of that period tended to mount large numbers of weapon systems with fewer rounds per launchers.  Some sources claim that the philosophy was that, with enough weapons, at least some of them would be operational at any given time.  This lead to a shortage of deck space and difficulties with maintenance and habitability below decks.  Coupled with the Soviet tendency to only have technical training for officers this lead to most maintenance being performed in port rather than at sea.  Replenishment at sea was also extremely difficult and seldom attempted.
 
The Soviet's also used missiles instead of aircraft carriers, LARGE, long range, missiles with big warheads, which tended to completely dominate the vessel designs.
 
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...
 
They would have the same coverage as the 76mm cannon on Oliver Perry class.  Which happens to be the Krivak's opposite number.
 
Besides, there is no room up front because of that HUGE 4 round missile launcher.

Kara and Kresta: What are the wing turrets doing other than providing a nice magazine that is easily accessible to enemy weapons?

 
Why not?  These are missile cruisers, the guns are considered secondary armament.  Most WWII designs had the secondary batteries on the sides.
 
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.
 
They could not produce enough gas turbine engines for all the planned construction, so they settled for the next best alternative.  Sometimes you have to choose between compromise or doing without.
 
Moskva class hull shape.
 
Hull design is conventional at the water line.  The sides are flared to support a larger deck for helicopter operations.  It looks funny from above because only the aft half has the flare.
 
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.
 
 A large STOVL carrier, they were all the rage back then.  Get in the news archives and read how the politicians and pundits excoriated the US Navy for not joining the switch to "smaller more effective carriers".  The best of the lot were the British 'Invincible' class, which had enough combat experience to show that all such designs inherently lacked the ability to provide critical capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics