Jump to content

Peresvet-class Pre-Dreadnought Battleship (1898/1900): Port Arthur was a death trap!


Should the Peresvet-class Pre-Dreadnought battleships be added to War Thunder?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Peresvet/Oslyabya (no major difference) and Pobeda (improved armor composition) PDBBs be added?

    • yes! Peresvet/Oslyabya and Pobeda should both be added
      28
    • yes, but only Peresvet or Oslyabya
      1
    • yes, but only Pobeda
      1
    • nyet!
      7
  2. 2. Should Sagami (formerly Peresvet) and/or Suwo (formerly Pobeda) be added to the japanese tech tree?

    • yes, 1 of them as a premium!
      4
    • yes, 1 of them as a squadron research!
      7
    • yes, 1 of them as an event reward!
      3
    • yes, both of them in any combination
      16
    • nyet! (but in japanese)
      7
  3. 3. Should Armored Cruiser Peresvet (1916) (purchased back from Japan during WWI, less armament) be added?

    • yes, as a researchable!
      17
    • yes, as a premium!
      5
    • yes, as a squadron researchable!
      4
    • yes, as an event reward!
      3
    • nyet!
      8


This is a suggestion for the trio of really quite well balanced and intermediate strength turn-of-the-century Russian pre-dreadnoughts:

Пересвет (Peresvet) (Sagami in Japanese service)

Ослябя (Oslyabya)

and Победа (Pobeda) (Suwo in Japanese service). Pobeda was a slightly improved design laid down after Peresvet and Oslyabya

each ships had slight differences.

 

Peresvet in Toulon, France, 1901

1280px-Peresvet1901.jpg

 

Oslyabya leaving Bizerte, French Tunisia, 1903

800px-Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg

 

Pobeda at anchor, Port Arthur, March 1904

800px-Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg

 

Peresvet_Brassey's.png

Right elevation and deck plan as depicted in Brassey's Naval Annual 1902

___________________________________________________________________________________

HISTORY:

the genesis of the Peresvet-class ultimately stems all the way back to to the Crimean war of 1854-1855, where the Russians were thoroughly embarrassed in how badly they were ultimately beaten in a war (just ask Sevastopol) that has become relatively infamous for its mindblowing level of incompetence, mismanagement, and outright stupidity of its commanders at times on both sides, as well as ironically being one of the first "modern" wars fought, integrating naval shells, railway logistics, and telecommunications.

 

The chief takeaway from this disaster of a war for Russia was that it was actually kind of a paper tiger, and that it simply could not match the British or French and their more resource-rich ultra-industrial empires in raw production, meaning Russia would have to fight smarter and cater to its unique strengths and weaknesses. This would bring about the naval doctrine that Russia still has today: deterrence and coastal defense, and commerce raiding. by the time of the 1890s and going into the 20th century this strategy was about building a series of quick and long range Armored Cruisers as exemplified by the likes of ships like the Rossia (1896) and Rurik (1895)

 

The British response was the Centurion-class second class battleships to defeat these cruisers, which the Russians countered with the three (originally two) ships of the Peresvet-class that were designed to support these armored cruisers. This role of what amounted to an Escort Battleship emphasized the same high speed and long range of armored cruisers at the expense of heavy armament like the Russian BB-standard 12-inch cannons, and armor like that of the preceding one-off BB Rostislav, and succeeding one-off BB Potemkin.

 

Peresvet/Sagami:

 

Peresvet would be the definitive grizzled veteran and #1 zombie of the class, fighting in the Battle of Port Arthur, Yellow Sea, and the Siege of Port Arthur. before being refloated, repaired, and put back into service by the japanese as the Sagami... only to be sold BACK to the russians, ordered back to patrol the White Sea... and only making it past Port Said, Egypt before running into a minefield set by one of the most homicidal U-boats (SM U-73) in the Mediterranean during WWI.

 

Spoiler

Battle of Port Arthur:

 

After the Japanese victory in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95, tensions had arisen between Russia and Japan over their ambitions to control both Manchuria and Korea. A further issue was the Russian failure to withdraw its troops from Manchuria in October 1903 as promised. Japan had begun negotiations to ease the situation in 1901, but the Russian government was slow and uncertain in its replies because it had not yet decided exactly how to resolve the problems.

Japan interpreted these as deliberate prevarications designed to buy time to complete the Russian armament programs. The final straws were news of Russian timber concessions in northern Korea and the Russian refusal to acknowledge Japanese interests in Manchuria while continuing to place conditions on Japanese activities in Korea. These led the Japanese government to decide in December 1903 that war was now inevitable. The Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night as tensions with Japan increased, in order to react more quickly to any Japanese attempt to land troops in Korea.

 

On the night of 8/9 February 1904, the IJN launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur.

Peresvet was not hit by the initial torpedo-boat incursion and sortied the following morning when the Combined Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō, attacked.

Tōgō had expected the surprise night attack by his ships to be much more successful than it was, anticipating that the Russians would be badly disorganized and weakened, but they had recovered from their surprise and were ready for his assault.

The Japanese vessels had been spotted by the protected cruiser Boyarin, which was patrolling offshore, and alerted the Russian defenses. Tōgō chose to attack the Russian coastal defenses with his main armament and engage the ships with his secondary guns.

Splitting his fire proved to be a poor decision as the Japanese eight-inch (203 mm) and six-inch guns inflicted inconsequential damage on the Russian ships, which concentrated all their fire on their opponents with some effect. Peresvet was hit three times with little effect during the battle.

 

On 22 March, Peresvet joined several other battleships firing indirectly at Japanese ships bombarding Port Arthur's harbor. While training outside Port Arthur on 26 March, she accidentally collided with the battleship Sevastopol and sustained minor damage. Peresvet participated in the action of 13 April, when Tōgō successfully lured out a portion of the Pacific Squadron, including Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship, the battleship Petropavlovsk.

When Makarov spotted the five Japanese battleships, he turned back for Port Arthur and Petropavlovsk struck a minefield laid by the Japanese the previous night. The ship sank in less than two minutes following the explosion of one of her magazines, and Makarov was one of the 677 killed.

Emboldened by his success, Tōgō resumed long-range bombardment missions. Two days later, Peresvet hit the armored cruiser Nisshin once as the latter ship was bombarding Port Arthur.

 

Peresvet sailed with the rest of the Pacific Squadron on 23 June in an abortive attempt to reach Vladivostok.

The new squadron commander, Rear Admiral Wilgelm Vitgeft, ordered the squadron to return to Port Arthur when it encountered the Japanese fleet shortly before sunset, as he did not wish to engage his numerically superior opponents in a night battle. Peresvet bombarded Japanese positions besieging the port on 28 July.

Some of the ship's guns were removed during the summer to reinforce the defenses of the port. Peresvet lost a total of three 6-inch, two 75-millimeter, two 47-millimeter and four 37-millimeter guns. She was hit on 9 August by two 4.7-inch (120 mm) shells fired by a battery with a narrow view of the harbor, but they caused only slight damage

 

 

Battle of the Yellow Sea:

 

The Japanese bombardment, coupled with a direct order from Tsar Nicholas II, forced Vitgeft to make an attempt to reach Vladivostok.

The squadron sortied in an attempt to escape to Vladivostok in the morning of 10 August. At 12:25, it was spotted by Japanese cruisers and intercepted by the Combined Fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea. Peresvet was fourth in line during the battle, and was not seriously damaged during the early long-range stage of the action.

 

Around 18:00 her topmasts were destroyed and two 12-inch shells from the battleship Asahi penetrated the conning tower of the Russian flagship Tsesarevich, killing Vitgeft and the helmsman, severely wounding the captain, and causing the ship to come to a dead stop after executing a sharp turn. Thinking that this was a maneuver planned by Vitgeft, the Russian battleline started to execute the same turn, causing all of the ships directly behind Tsesarevich, including Peresvet, to maneuver wildly to avoid hitting the stationary flagship.

 

As the Japanese ships continued to pound the Tsesarevich, the battleship Retvizan, followed shortly afterward by Peresvet, boldly charged Tōgō's battleline in an attempt to divert the Japanese shellfire. The Japanese battleline immediately shifted fire to the oncoming ships, badly damaging both and forcing them to turn away.

Ukhtomsky signaled the other Russian ships to follow him back to Port Arthur, but the signal was hard to discern because the flags had to be hung from the bridge railings without the topmasts and were only gradually recognized.

Peresvet received a total of 39 hits of all sizes that killed 13 men and wounded 69. Her forward 12-inch turret was knocked out and several hits near the waterline caused flooding; compartments of the double bottom had to be counterflooded to restore some of her stability. Repairs took until late September.

 

Returning to Port Arthur on 11 August, the Russian squadron found the city still under siege by the Japanese Third Army led by Baron Nogi Maresuke.

The new commander, Rear Admiral Robert N. Viren, decided to use the men and guns of the Pacific Squadron to reinforce the defenses of Port Arthur and even more guns were stripped from the squadron's ships.

On 20–22 September Japanese troops attacked 203 Hill, which overlooked the harbor; Peresvet, Retvizan, the battleship Poltava and the gunboat Bobr bombarded the Japanese positions to support the successful defense of the hill. The Japanese began firing blindly into the harbor on 30 September and hit Peresvet with at least six 5.9-inch (150 mm) and 4.7-inch shells.

She was struck once more the following day. On 2 October she was hit by nine 11-inch (280 mm) shells that failed to penetrate her deck armor, but did considerable damage to the unprotected portions of the ship.

The Japanese troops were able to seize Hill 203 on 5 December. This allowed the Imperial Japanese Army's siege guns to fire directly at the Russian ships and they hit Peresvet many times.

The Russians scuttled her in shallow water on 7 December 1904 without, however, seriously damaging her, possibly in the hope of fooling the Japanese into switching targets.

 

800px-Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u

Peresvet, after scuttling.

 

Japanese career:

 

Peresvet was refloated by Japanese engineers on 29 June 1905 and steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 25 August. She was renamed Sagami, after the eponymous ancient province.

She was classified as a first-class battleship on 25 August and arrived at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal on 16 September. Her repairs began on 30 September and continued until 20 July 1908, although she participated in the review of captured ships on 23 October 1905.

To improve her stability, Sagami's forward fighting top was removed. Sagami was rearmed with four 10-inch 45 caliber guns, ten 6-inch guns and sixteen QF 12-pounder 12 cwt guns. Two above-water 18-inch torpedo tubes replaced her original torpedo armament and her crew now numbered 791 officers and enlisted men. She was one of the reception ships when the American Great White Fleet visited Japan in late 1908 and was often used as an "enemy" ship during the annual fleet maneuvers. Sagami was reclassified as a first-class coastal defense ship on 28 August 1912.

 

Return to Russia:

 

In 1916 the Russian government decided to reinforce its naval strength outside the Baltic and Black Seas. As Japan and Russia were allies during World War I, the Japanese government sold Sagami and some other ex-Russian warships back to Russia in March. She arrived in Vladivostok on 3 April, where she re-assumed her former name of Peresvet, and was classified as an armored cruiser two days later. The ship ran aground on 23 May while conducting trials and was refloated by the IJN on 9 July. Peresvet arrived at Maizuru Naval Arsenal for repairs on 30 July and sailed for European Russia on 18 October. She was intended to serve with the White Sea Fleet and paused en route in Port Said for machinery repairs at the beginning of 1917. On 4 January 1917, about 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73. Holed forward and abreast one of her boiler rooms, Peresvet sank after catching fire. Losses were reported as either 167 or 116 men.

 

 

 

Oslyabya:

 

1024px-Oslyabya08.jpg

Oslyabya, en route to Port Arthur, 1905

 

unlike Peresvet and Pobeda, who were in Port Arthur on day 1, Oslyabya linked up with the Second Pacific Squadron in response to the war starting. while they were too late for the battles of Port Arthur or Yellow Sea, they did arrive just in time...

 

...for the Battle of Tsushima...

 

...where the japanese beasted on the russians so hard they captured or wiped out the entire 2nd Pacific Squadron.

 

Oslyabya in particular never had a chance. it was INITIALLY fired upon by at least 2 japanese battleships and an armored cruiser, and as Oslyabya and the rest of the squadron formed up into a battle line of parallel columns, shell splinters started shredding the conning tower and anyone in there, knocking out the rangefinder, and breaking the fire control cables, all of which took Oslyabya out of formation and into a situation where half a dozen enemy armored cruisers were blasting it constantly at short range.

 

to drive the point home how quickly Oslyabya was KIAed, the Japanese initially opened fire at 14:10, Oslyabya's funnels touched the water around 15:10 and captain Vladimir Ber then ordered to abandon ship- at only 1 hour in. Oslyabya sunk a few minutes later; starboard propeller still spinning; with a loss of 470 crew, including captain Ber.

 

Spoiler

The Russians were spotted early on the morning of 27 May by Japanese ships as they entered the Korea Strait en route to Vladivostok. During the subsequent battle Oslyabya led the Second Division of the squadron and was initially the target of at least two battleships and a pair of armored cruisers when the Japanese opened fire at 14:10.

As the Japanese approached, Rozhestvensky ordered the fleet to move from line ahead formation to parallel columns and Oslyabya was forced to almost stop in her tracks to avoid hitting the battleship Oryol, the last ship of Rozhestvensky's division, as she maneuvered.

Almost immediately, the shells began inflicting damage, knocking out the rangefinder, wounding the gunnery officer and severing the cables connecting the guns to the Geisler fire-control system.

Other hits shot away the mainmast and knocked out the forward gun turret as well as three of the port six-inch guns.

Splinters from one of the many hits entered her conning tower, killing the quartermaster and wounding most of the men inside.

This caused the ship to fall out of line to starboard and she was engaged by six Japanese armored cruisers at short range.

More serious were several large-caliber shells that struck along the ship's waterline about 15 minutes into the engagement that caused major flooding; they opened up enough of the ship's bow to the sea that her forward motion forced more and more water into her hull and she began listing to port.

Flooding of her starboard forward magazine was ordered in an attempt to counteract the list, but it just added more weight forward and destroyed the ship's stability. Oslyabya's list increased to 12 degrees at 14:20, flooding many of the lower turrets. Her funnels touched the water around 15:10 and Ber ordered "abandon ship".

The ship sank a few minutes later, with her starboard propeller still turning, taking Ber and 470 of her crew with her.

 

 

Pobeda/Suwo:

 

Pobeda was alongside Peresvet for the majority of the war. their actions began to differ when; during Yellow Sea; Pobeda DIDN'T valiantly charge headlong into A FIRING LINE OF BATTLESHIPS after the flagship Tsesarevich was beaten to a pulp and the second consecutive commanding admiral of the Pacific Fleet to be KIAed, Vice Admiral Wilgelm Vitgeft, was killed in action.

unsurprisingly, while Pobeda didn't come home without some serious damage, it didn't have to limp home and didn't require months of work to repair like Peresvet and the BB Retvizan, who lead the ill-advised charge.

 

just like Peresvet, while stuck in Port Arthur, Pobeda's armament was removed to be used to (fruitlessly) further fortify the completely surrounded and besieged port. eventually the japanese captured 203 Hill overlooking the port, and their 11-inch siege guns were able to batter the ships there with direct fire. Pobeda took 30 direct hits before sinking in the shallow port waters. the crew attempted to scuttle the ship but almost all vital machinery was already underwater.

 

kind of amazing that Peresvet and Pobeda survived so long considering how just many Russian FLAGSHIPS sunk and their admirals died while they were in the vicinity.

 

in Japanese service as Suwo:

 

1280px-Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg

Suwo at anchor in Yokosuka, 10 October 1908

 

Pobeda was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905 and was classified as a first-class battleship by the IJN. She was renamed as Suwo on 25 October, after the ancient province.

She steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 16 December and began temporary repairs. Her reconstruction at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal began in May 1906 and lasted until 10 October 1908.

 

To improve her stability, Suwo's forward fighting top was removed. Suwo was rearmed with four 10-inch 45 caliber guns, ten 6-inch guns and sixteen QF 12-pounder 12 cwt (3 in (76 mm))guns. Two above-water 18-inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes replaced her original torpedo armament and her crew now numbered 791 officers and enlisted men.

 

Suwo was re-designated as a first-class coastal defense ship on 28 August 1912 and became a training ship for cadets and engineers.

Initially assigned to the 1st Standing Squadron when World War I began, she shortly afterwards became the flagship of the 2nd Squadron, commanded by Vice Admiral Kato Sadakichi.

The squadron was tasked to blockade the German-owned port of Tsingtao, China, and to cooperate with the Imperial Japanese Army in capturing the city.

Tango and the other ships of the squadron, reinforced by the British pre-dreadnought HMS Triumph, bombarded German fortifications throughout the siege until the Germans surrendered on 7 November.

Suwo served as flagship of the Second Squadron of the Second Fleet in 1915–1916 before becoming a gunnery training ship at Yokosuka for the rest of the war.

In April 1922, in compliance with the Washington Naval Treaty, Suwo was disarmed at the Kure Naval Arsenal.

While her armor was being removed, the ship capsized on 13 July.

She was probably scrapped in 1922–1923, but at least one source suggests she was refloated and hulked, serving until being broken up at Kure in 1946.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:

 

PERESVET:

 

Displacement: 13,810 long tons (14,032 t)

 

Length: 434 ft 5 in (132.4 m)

Beam: 71 ft 6 in (21.8 m)

Draft: 26 ft 3 in (8.0 m)

 

Installed power: 30 Belleville boilers feeding into 3 vertical triple-expansion steam engines producing 14,532 ihp, powering 3 propeller shafts, producing speeds of up to 18.3 knots (33.9 km/h; 21.1 mph)

 

max range: 6,200 nmi (11,500 km; 7,100 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)

 

crew complement: 27 officers, 744 enlisted (771 overall) (as Sagami, total crew of 791)

 

OSLYABYA:

 

Displacement: 14,408 long tons

 

Length: 434 ft 5 in (132.4 m)

Beam: 71 ft 6 in (21.8 m)

Draft: 26 ft 3 in (8.0 m)

 

Installed power: 30 Belleville boilers feeding into 3 vertical triple-expansion steam engines producing 15,051 ihp, powering 3 propeller shafts, producing speeds of up to 18.33 knots (33.95 km/h; 21.09 mph)

 

max range: 6,200 nmi (11,500 km; 7,100 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)

 

crew complement: 27 officers, 744 enlisted (771 overall)

 

POBEDA:

 

Displacement: 13,320 long tons

 

Length: 434 ft 5 in (132.4 m)

Beam: 71 ft 6 in (21.8 m)

Draft: 26 ft 3 in (8.0 m)

 

Installed power: 30 Belleville boilers feeding into 3 vertical triple-expansion steam engines producing 15,578 ihp, powering 3 propeller shafts, producing speeds of up to 18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph)

18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph) from 15,578 indicated horsepower (11,617 kW)

 

max range: 6,200 nmi (11,500 km; 7,100 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)

 

crew complement: 27 officers, 744 enlisted (771 overall)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

EXTRA NOTES:

 

an interesting thing I noticed about the Peresvet-class as well as the Borodino-class pre-dreadnoughts of the same vintage is that despite being true battleships of the era, their design intent of commerce raiding, protecting armored cruisers while commerce raiding, and rather unimpressive armor profile is honestly... more reminiscent of a battleCRUISER than a battleship.

comparing the Peresvets and Borodinos against the original battlecruiser class, the British Invincible-class laid down in 1906 shows that, if the russians had initial access to and experience with steam turbine engines at the same time as the UK, they very well may have beaten the brits to the 1st battlecruiser milestone. because if you add another 10 km/h of top speed to them, well... you have the Dreadnought Armored Cruiser concept, the origin of the battlecruiser.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

ARMOR:

 

(in general)

Main belt 229-178 mm,
upper belt 102 mm,
deck up to 82.6 mm,
towers 229 mm,
barbettes 203 mm,
casemates 127 or 127/51 mm,
cuttings 152 and 102 mm

 

Peresvet:

description of frame of ship spoilered below. original cyrillic on top, english autotranslated below. keep in mind that cyrillic-english translation is not perfect.

Spoiler

RUSSIAN:

Продольный набор корпуса включал вертикальный киль длиной 89 м из листов толщиной 12,7 мм, склёпанный из двух 15,9-мм листов горизонтальный киль и по пять стрингеров с каждого борта. Продолжением киля служили бронзовые форштевень и ахтерштевень. Кроме того, имелись тиковый наружный киль и дубовый фальшкиль, а также скуловые кили высотой 0,76 м, обшитые деревом и медью. Коэффициент общей полноты корпуса был равен 0,576, увеличение водоизмещения на 1 см осадки составляло 20,55 т.

 

Основу поперечного набора составляли 116 шпангоутов. Между 18-м и 96-м шпангоутами простиралось двойное дно высотой 0,99 м; на всём этом протяжении шпация была равна 1,22 м. В нос и корму, до 18-го и после 96-го шпангоутов, двойного дна не было, а шпация составляла 0,9 м. Бимсами служили швеллеры высотой от 203 до 254 мм; вблизи башен они подкреплялись дополнительными продольными рёбрами.

 

Ближайший к горизонтальному килю пояс наружной обшивки имел толщину 22,2 мм, а толщина остальных девяти поясов по мере удаления от киля уменьшалась с 19,1 до 12,7 мм. Листы наружной обшивки укладывались «край на край», имели длину не менее 6 м и ширину в средней части корпуса 1,22—1,6 м.

 

Водонепроницаемые переборки делили корпус на десять отсеков: таранный, носовых погребов боезапаса, подбашенный носовой, три котельных, два машинных, подбашенный кормовой и румпельный. Бортовые угольные ямы имели продольную переборку и вместе с находящимся в них углём обеспечивали дополнительную защиту. В переднем машинном отделении по диаметральной плоскости также проходила продольная переборка.

 

В надводной части корпус делился на два межпалубных пространства тремя палубами: нижней (броневой), жилой (батарейной) и верхней, выше которой на протяжении двух третей длины корпуса проходила четвёртая палуба — навесная, являвшаяся продолжением полубака. На всю высоту от броневой палубы до второго дна размещались машинные и котельные отделения, погреба боезапаса, провизионные кладовые, помещения подводных минных аппаратов, рулевое устройство.

 

Подводная часть корпуса была обшита тиковыми досками толщиной 4 дюйма (102 мм) в один слой, «как в английском флоте». Доски крепились бронзовыми болтами. Между наложенными поверх досок медными листами и деревом в два слоя прокладывалась просмолённая бумага.

 

Общий вес корпуса составил 4956 т.

 

________________________________________________________________________

ENGLISH

The longitudinal hull set included a vertical keel 89 m long from 12.7 mm thick sheets, a horizontal keel riveted from two 15.9 mm sheets and five stringers from each side. The keel continued with bronze stem and stern stem . In addition, there were teak outer keel and oak false keel , as well as zygomatic keels 0.76 m high, sheathed in wood and copper. The total body fullness coefficient was 0.576; the increase in displacement by 1 cm of draft was 20.55 tons.

 

The basis of the transverse set was 116 frames . Between the 18th and 96th frames there was a double bottom 0.99 m high; on the whole this stretch Spacing was equal to 1.22 m. In the bow and stern, 18 th and 96 th after frames, double bottom was not, and was 0.9 m Spacing. BIMS served channels of a height of 203 to 254 mm ; near the towers they were supported by additional longitudinal ribs.

The outer skin belt closest to the horizontal keel had a thickness of 22.2 mm, and the thickness of the remaining nine belts decreased from 19.1 to 12.7 mm as they moved away from the keel. The sheets of the outer casing were laid "edge to edge", had a length of at least 6 m and a width in the middle of the hull of 1.22-1.6 m.

 

Watertight bulkheads divided the hull into ten compartments: ramming, nasal ammunition cellars, turret bow, three boiler rooms, two engine rooms, turret aft and tiller. The side coal pits had a longitudinal bulkhead and together with the coal in them provided additional protection. A longitudinal bulkhead also passed in the front engine room along a diametrical plane .

 

In the above-water part, the hull was divided into two interdeck spaces by three decks: lower (armored), residential (battery) and upper, above which, over two-thirds of the length of the hull, the fourth deck passed - the hinged one, which was a continuation of the forecastle. The entire height from the armored deck to the second bottom housed engine rooms and boiler rooms, ammunition cellars, provisions storerooms, rooms for underwater mines , steering gear.

 

The underwater hull was lined with teak planks 4 inches (102 mm) thick in one layer, "like in the English Navy." The boards were fastened with bronze bolts. Between overlaid copper sheets and wood in two layers, tarred paper was laid.

 

The total weight of the hull was 4956 tons.

 

Peresvet's waterline armor belt consisted of Harvey armor and was 4–9 inches (102–229 mm) thick. The Krupp cemented armor of her gun turrets had a maximum thickness of nine inches and her deck ranged from 2 to 3 inches (51 to 76 mm) in thickness.

 

 

The main armor belt along the waterline consisted of 2.35 m high Harvey steel plates , with 1.44 m going down under normal water. The plates protecting the machine and boiler compartments had a thickness of 229 mm, gradually thinning under water to 127 mm.

 

In the area of the towers there were thinner plates with a thickness of 178 mm in the surface part, which was reduced to 102 mm under water. The main belt was locked on the 18th and 96th frames with armored traverses from 178 mm plates; its length was about 95 m.

 

Above the main belt was located the upper belt , covering the space from the lower to the battery deck and consisting of 102-mm plates, closed with broken-beam traverses on 35-37 and 77-82 frames. It was much shorter than the main belt (about 49 m) and protected the space from about the first chimney to the stern casemates of 152-mm guns inclusive. The foundation of the chimneys and cylinders of the main vehicles of the ship fell into this zone.

 

The horizontal defense was represented by a cranked armored deck extending throughout the ship and having bevels not only to the sides, but also to the extremities. At Peresvet, due to difficulties with the production of a new “extra-soft nickel steel,” it was made from ordinary shipbuilding steel.

 

Throughout the armored citadel, the edges of the deck abutted against the lower edges of the main belt, and the thickness was 38.1 mm of the armor itself plus 12.7 mm of steel decking, which in total yielded 50.8 mm.

Outside the citadel, the thickness of the armor was from 38.1 to 57.2 mm, and the thickness of the deck was 25.4 mm, which in total gave protection from 63.5 to 82.6 mm thick (the bevels of the armored deck were thicker).

A similar horizontal protection design was borrowed from the English battleship HMS Majestic. and from that time it became traditional for all major Russian ships.

 

The residential (battery) deck, which was the roof of the upper citadel, also played a certain role in horizontal protection. Its thickness within the citadel was mainly 63.5 mm, decreasing to 50.8 mm in the casemates of 152 mm guns.

 

The main-caliber towers were protected by 229 mm armor, and their barbets were protected by 203 mm, the latter being ordered in Germany (it probably belonged to the early samples of steel hardened by the Krupp method at the factory of which it was made). The roofs of the towers had a thickness of 50.8 mm.

 

Regarding the protection of the casemates of 152-mm guns, the data vary. According to some sources, the side armor of all casemates was 127 mm, according to others - 51 mm, except for the casemates of two medium guns (one from each side), protected by 127 mm plates.

 

The casemates were protected from longitudinal fire by the bow and stern traverses that covered two interdeck spaces - from the hinged to the battery deck.

 

The thickness of the bow traverse was 127 mm, the stern - 102 mm.

 

The internal bulkheads of the casemates were 38.1 and 19 mm thick. The hinged deck, which served as a roof for the upper casemates, had a thickness of 20.3 mm above them.

 

The casemate guns themselves had shields 63.5 mm thick.

 

The bow conning was protected by 152 mm armor, the aft - 102 mm. Their roofs were probably 50.8 mm thick.

 

In the space between the battery and the upper decks, the chimneys were protected by 51-mm or 38-mm armor (data vary), but this protection was not brought to the mounted deck.

 

The ammunition elevators covered above the armored belt were also covered with similar armor.

 

 

Oslyabya:

 

(in general)

Main belt 229–178,
upper belt 102,
deck 51–82.6,
towers 229,
barbettes 203,
casemates 127–51,
logging 152–102 mm

 

description of frame of ship spoilered below. original cyrillic on top, english autotranslated below.

Spoiler

RUSSIAN:

Продольный набор корпуса включал вертикальный киль длиной 89 м из листов толщиной 12,7 мм, склёпанный из двух 15,9-мм листов горизонтальный киль и по пять стрингеров с каждого борта.

 

Продолжением киля служили бронзовые форштевень и ахтерштевень; последний крепился к килю заклёпками, а не болтами, как на «Пересвете» и «Победе».

 

Кроме того, имелись тиковый наружный киль и дубовый фальшкиль, а также скуловые кили высотой 0,76 м, обшитые деревом и медью.

 

Подводная часть корпуса была обшита тиковыми досками толщиной 4 дюйма (102 мм) в один слой, «как в английском флоте».

Доски крепились бронзовыми болтами. Между наложенными поверх досок медными листами и деревом в два слоя прокладывалась просмолённая бумага.

 

Верхняя палуба имела настил из тиковых досок (на головном корабле использовалась сосна).

 

 

ENGLISH:

The longitudinal hull set included a vertical keel 89 m long from 12.7 mm thick sheets, a horizontal keel riveted from two 15.9 mm sheets and five stringers from each side.

 

The keel continued with bronze stem and stern stem; the latter was attached to the keel with rivets, and not bolts, as in Peresvet and Pobeda.

 

In addition, there were teak outer keel and oak false keel , as well as zygomatic keels 0.76 m high, sheathed in wood and copper.

 

The underwater hull was lined with teak planks 4 inches (102 mm) thick in one layer, "like in the English Navy." The boards were fastened with bronze bolts. Between overlaid copper sheets and wood in two layers, tarred paper was laid.

 

The upper deck had teak plank flooring (pine was used on the lead ship).

 

Oslyabya's waterline armor belt consisted of Harvey armor and was four to nine inches (102 to 229 mm) thick. The belt was 7 feet 9 inches (2.4 m) high, of which the upper 36 inches (910 mm) was intended to be above the waterline, but the ship was significantly overweight and only had three inches (76 mm) showing at normal load. At full load, the belt was completely submerged and her only protection was the four-inch upper belt. The Krupp cemented armor of her gun turrets had a maximum thickness of nine inches and her deck ranged from two to three inches (51 to 76 mm) thick.

 

 

The main armor belt along the waterline consisted of 2.35 m high Harvey Steel plates, with 1.44 m going down under normal water. The plates protecting the machine and boiler compartments had a thickness of 229 mm, gradually thinning under water to 127 mm. In the area of the towers there were thinner plates with a thickness of 178 mm in the surface part, which was reduced to 102 mm under water. The main belt was locked on the 18th and 96th frames with armored traverses from 178 mm plates; its length was about 95 m.

 

Above the main belt was located the upper belt , consisting of 102-mm plates, closed with broken-beam traverses on 35-37 and 77-82 frames. It was much shorter than the main belt (about 49 m) and protected the space from about the first chimney to the stern casemates of 152-mm guns inclusive. The foundation of the chimneys and cylinders of the main vehicles of the ship fell into this zone.

 

The horizontal defense was represented by a cranked armored deck extending throughout the ship and having bevels not only to the sides, but also to the extremities. Throughout the armored citadel, its edges abutted against the lower edges of the main belt, and the thickness was 38.1 mm of armor plus 12.7 mm of steel flooring, which in total yielded 50.8 mm.

 

 Outside the citadel, the thickness of the armor was from 38.1 to 57.2 mm, and the thickness of the deck was 25.4 mm, which in total gave protection from 63.5 to 82.6 mm thick (the bevels of the armored deck were thicker). In all likelihood, the armored deck was made of a new “extra-soft nickel steel” (on the lead ship of the series, “Peresvet” , ordinary shipbuilding steel was used due to technological difficulties that arose in the beginning of the production of a new type of armor).

 

The residential (battery) deck, which was the roof of the upper citadel, also played a certain role in horizontal protection. Its thickness within the citadel was mainly 63.5 mm, decreasing to 50.8 mm in the casemates of 152 mm guns.

 

The main-caliber towers were protected by 229 mm armor, and their barbets were protected by 203 mm, the latter being ordered in Germany (it probably belonged to the early samples of steel hardened by the Krupp method at the factory of which it was made). The roofs of the towers had a thickness of 50.8 mm.

 

Regarding the protection of the casemates of 152-mm guns, the data vary. According to some sources, the side armor of all casemates was 127 mm, according to others - 51 mm, except for the casemates of two medium guns (one from each side), protected by 127 mm plates.

The casemates were protected from longitudinal fire by the bow and stern traverses that covered two interdeck spaces - from the hinged to the battery deck.

The thickness of the bow traverse was 127 mm, the stern - 102 mm.

The internal bulkheads of the casemates were 38.1 and 19 mm thick.

The hinged deck, which served as a roof for the upper casemates, had a thickness of 20.3 mm above them.

The casemate guns themselves had shields 63.5 mm thick.

 

The bow conning was protected by 152 mm armor, the aft - 102 mm. Their roofs were probably 50.8 mm thick.

In the space between the battery and the upper decks, the chimneys were protected by 51-mm or 38-mm armor (data vary), but this protection was not brought to the mounted deck.

The ammunition elevators covered above the armored belt were also covered with similar armor.

 

Pobeda:

 

(in general)

Main belt 229-178,
upper belt 102,
deck 127-51,
towers 229,
barbets 203,
casemates 64,
wheelhouse 229 mm

 

description of frame of ship spoilered below. original cyrillic on top, english autotranslated below.

Spoiler

RUSSIAN:

Корпус «Победы» весьма сильно отличался от предыдущих кораблей своей формой; фактически этот броненосец был построен по новому теоретическому чертежу. А вот конструкция в целом особых изменений не претерпела: главными отличиями стало изготовление штевней, рулевой рамы и кронштейнов гребных винтов из стали, а не бронзы, и отказ от деревянной и медной обшивки подводной части корпуса, а также уменьшение высоты жилой палубы на 356 мм. Вес корпуса составил 4798 т против 4956 т у «Пересвета». Изменение водоизмещения на 1 см осадки для «Победы» составляло 20,65 т против 20,55 т у двух других кораблей серии.

 

Продольный набор корпуса включал вертикальный киль длиной 89 м из листов толщиной 12,7 мм, склёпанный из двух 15,9-мм листов горизонтальный киль и по пять стрингеров с каждого борта. Продолжением киля служили форштевень и ахтерштевень.

 

Основу поперечного набора составляли 116 шпангоутов. Между 18-м и 96-м шпангоутами простиралось двойное дно высотой 0,99 м; на всём этом протяжении шпация была равна 1,22 м. В нос и корму, до 18-го и после 96-го шпангоутов, двойного дна не было, а шпация составляла 0,9 м. Бимсами служили швеллеры высотой от 203 до 254 мм; вблизи башен они подкреплялись дополнительными продольными рёбрами.

 

Ближайший к горизонтальному килю пояс наружной обшивки имел толщину 22,2 мм, а толщина остальных девяти поясов по мере удаления от киля уменьшалась с 19,1 до 12,7 мм. Листы наружной обшивки укладывались «край на край», имели длину не менее 6 м и ширину в средней части корпуса 1,22—1,6 м.

 

Водонепроницаемые переборки делили корпус на десять отсеков: таранный, носовых погребов боезапаса, подбашенный носовой, три котельных, два машинных, подбашенный кормовой и румпельный. Они располагались на 29; 41,5; 53,5; 66; 75 и 84-м шпангоутах, точное положение ещё трёх переборок (двух в носу и одной в корме) неизвестно, они должны находиться примерно в районе 10, 20 и 90-го шпангоутов. Бортовые угольные ямы имели продольную переборку и вместе с находящимся в них углём давали дополнительную защиту. В переднем машинном отделении по диаметральной плоскости также проходила продольная переборка.

 

В надводной части корпус делился на два межпалубных пространства тремя палубами: нижней (броневой), жилой (батарейной) и верхней, выше которой на протяжении двух третей длины корпуса проходила четвёртая палуба — навесная, являвшаяся продолжением полубака. На всю высоту от броневой палубы до второго дна размещались машинные и котельные отделения, погреба боезапаса, провизионные кладовые, помещения подводных минных аппаратов, рулевое устройство.

 

ENGLISH:

 

The Pobeda hull was very different from previous ships in its form; in fact, this battleship was built according to a new theoretical drawing. But the design as a whole did not undergo any special changes: the main differences were the manufacture of pins , steering frame and propeller brackets from steel, not bronze, and the rejection of wooden and copper cladding of the underwater hull, as well as a decrease in the height of the living deck by 356 mm. The weight of the hull was 4798 tons compared to 4956 tons at Peresvet . The change in displacement by 1 cm draft for the “Victory” was 20.65 tons against 20.55 tons in the other two ships of the series.

 

The longitudinal hull set included a vertical keel 89 m long from 12.7 mm thick sheets, a horizontal keel riveted from two 15.9 mm sheets and five stringers from each side. The keel continued with the stem and stern stem .

 

The basis of the transverse set was 116 frames. Between the 18th and 96th frames there was a double bottom 0.99 m high; on the whole this stretch Spacing was equal to 1.22 m. In the bow and stern, 18 th and 96 th after frames, double bottom was not, and was 0.9 m Spacing. BIMS served channels of a height of 203 to 254 mm ; near the towers they were supported by additional longitudinal ribs.

 

The outer skin belt closest to the horizontal keel had a thickness of 22.2 mm, and the thickness of the remaining nine belts decreased from 19.1 to 12.7 mm as they moved away from the keel. The sheets of the outer casing were laid "edge to edge", had a length of at least 6 m and a width in the middle of the hull of 1.22-1.6 m.

 

Watertight bulkheads divided the hull into ten compartments: ramming, nasal ammunition cellars, turret bow, three boiler rooms, two engine rooms, turret aft and tiller. They were located at 29; 41.5; 53.5; 66; 75 and 84th frames, the exact position of three more bulkheads (two in the bow and one in the stern) is unknown, they should be located around the 10th, 20th and 90th frames.

The side coal pits had a longitudinal bulkhead and, together with the coal in them, provided additional protection. A longitudinal bulkhead also passed in the front engine room along a diametrical plane.

 

In the above-water part, the hull was divided into two interdeck spaces by three decks: lower (armored), residential (battery) and upper, above which, over two-thirds of the length of the hull, the fourth deck passed - the hinged one, which was a continuation of the forecastle.

 

The entire height from the armored deck to the second bottom housed engine rooms and boiler rooms, ammunition cellars, provisions storerooms, rooms for underwater mines , steering gear.

 

Pobeda's waterline armor belt consisted of Krupp cemented armor and was 4–9 inches (102–229 mm) thick. The armor of her gun turrets had a maximum thickness of 9 inches and her deck ranged from 2 to 3 inches (51 to 76 mm) in thickness

 

 

The main difference between the "Victory" from the two previous ships - "Relight" and "Oslyaby"  - was an improved reservation. The projectile resistance of armor plates at a generally the same thickness was increased by switching from Hervey to Krupp armor.

 

The main armor belt along the waterline consisted of plates 2.35 m high, with a normal draft of 1.44 m going under water. The plates protecting the machine and boiler compartments had a thickness of 229 mm, gradually thinning under water to 127 mm. In the area of the towers there were thinner plates with a thickness of 178 mm in the surface part, which was reduced to 102 mm under water. The main belt was locked on the 18th and 96th frames with armored traverses from 178 mm plates; its length was about 95 m.

 

Above the main belt was located the upper belt , consisting of 102-mm plates, closed with broken-beam traverses on 35-37 and 77-82 frames. It was much shorter than the main belt (about 49 m) and protected the space from about the first chimney to the stern casemates of 152-mm guns inclusive. The foundation of the chimneys and cylinders of the main vehicles of the ship fell into this zone.

 

The horizontal defense was represented by a crank-armored deck made of chrome-nickel steel, extending along the entire length of the ship and having bevels not only to the sides, but also to the extremities.

 

A number of sources indicate the thickness of the Pobeda armored deck up to 127 mm, which, however, seems unbelievable due to the sharp increase in its mass, while this battleship had the smallest construction overload of the entire series. Probably, only the glacis above the engine room had such thickness , and the rest of the deck was similar to that used at Peresvet.

 

Throughout the armored citadel, its edges abutted against the lower edges of the main belt, and the thickness was 38.1 mm of armor plus 12.7 mm of steel flooring, which in total yielded 50.8 mm. Outside the citadel, the thickness of the armor was from 38.1 to 57.2 mm, and the thickness of the deck was 25.4 mm, which in total gave protection from 63.5 to 82.6 mm thick (the bevels of the armored deck were thicker).

 

The residential (battery) deck, which was the roof of the upper citadel, also played a certain role in horizontal protection. Its thickness within the citadel was mainly 63.5 mm, decreasing to 50.8 mm in the casemates of 152 mm guns.

 

The main-caliber towers were protected by 229 mm armor, and their barbets  - 203 mm. The roofs of the towers had a thickness of 50.8 mm.

 

Regarding the protection of the casemates of the 152-mm guns, the data are contradictory, but it seems that on the Pobeda the thickness of the side armor plates was 63.5 mm (probably, ordinary chrome-nickel steel was used: they did not know how to temper plates of such a small thickness). The casemates were protected from longitudinal fire by the bow and stern traverses that covered two interdeck spaces - from the hinged to the battery deck.

The thickness of the bow traverse was 127 mm, the stern - 102 mm. The internal bulkheads of the casemates were 38.1 and 19 mm thick. The hinged deck, which served as a roof for the upper casemates, had a thickness of 20.3 mm above them. The casemate guns themselves had shields 63.5 mm thick.

 

The conning tower was protected by 229 mm armor and had a roof, probably 50.8 mm thick. From the aft conning tower, available on the first two battleships , refused.

In the space between the battery and the upper decks, the chimneys were protected by 51-mm or 38-mm armor (data vary), but this protection was not brought to the mounted deck. The ammunition elevators covered above the armored belt were also covered with similar armor.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

ARMAMENT:

(thank god for navweaps, they have detailed stats on each cannon)

Peresvet, Oslyabya and Pobeda:

 

2×2 254mm/45 caliber Pattern 1891 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/254_mm_45_caliber_Pattern_1891

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_10-45_m1891.php

 

11×1 152mm/45 caliber Pattern 1892 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_45_caliber_Pattern_1892

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_6-45_m1892.php

 

20×1  75mm/50 caliber Pattern 1892 (also known as the 11-pounder) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_50_caliber_Pattern_1892

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_29-50_m1891.php

 

20×1 single barrel 47 mm QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3-pounder_Hotchkiss#Russian_service

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_47mm_Hotchkiss.php

 

8×1 single barrel 37 mm QF 1-pounder Hotchkiss 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_37mm_Hotchkiss.php

 

5×1 single 15 in (381 mm) Type "L" torpedoes.- 3 abovewater, 2 submerged

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_PreWWII.php

 

45 Model 1898 naval mines

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMRussian_Mines.php

 

occasionally a source (russian wiki articles) references a pair of 63.5mm Baranovsky cannons as landing guns. clearly this was not a serious part of the ship-to-ship armament since only the russian wiki pages make any more than a passing reference to them, if at all.

 

Peresvet as Sagami (and after being sold back to russia in 1916, as Armored Cruiser Peresvet) and Pobeda as Suwo in Japanese service after Russo-Japanese war:

 

2×2 10 in (254 mm) guns 

 

10×1 152mm/40 caliber Type 41 Naval Gun (QF 6-inch export pattern Z1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_6-inch_naval_gun#Japanese_naval_service

 

16×1 76mm Type 41 3-inch/40 caliber (QF 12-pounder 12 cwt) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_12-pounder_12_cwt_naval_gun

 

2×1 above water 17.7-inch (450mm) torpedo tubes - the renamed Sagami and Suwo were refloated in 1905, repaired over 3 years and put into service in 1908. so applicable torpedoes of the era are the:

Type 37 (1904)

Ho Type 38 No.1 (1905)

Ho Type 38 No.2 "A" (1905)

Ho Type 38 No.2 "B" (1905)

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_PreWWII.php

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

SOURCES:

online:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peresvet-class_battleship

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Броненосцы_типа_«Пересвет»

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Peresvet

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пересвет_(броненосец)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Oslyabya

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ослябя_(броненосец)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Pobeda

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Победа_(броненосец)

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_bb_peresvet.htm

 

 

literary:

 

Chesneau, Roger; Kolesnik, Eugene M., eds. (1979). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905 . Greenwich, UK: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-8317-0302-4 . (PDF page 190)

 

Taras, Alexander (2000). Корабли Российского императорского флота 1892–1917 гг [ Ships of the Imperial Russian Navy 1892–1917 ]. Library of Military History (in Russian). Minsk, Russia: Kharvest. ISBN 978-985-433-888-0 .

 

  • Krestyaninov, Vasiliy (1998). "Броненосцы типа "Пересвет" (Battleships of the "Peresvet" class)". Морская коллекция (in Russian). Khimki, Russia: Kollektsiia (1). OCLC 436873057.
  • McLaughlin, Stephen (2003). Russian & Soviet Battleships. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-481-4.
  • Preston, Antony (1972). Battleships of World War I: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Battleships of All Nations 1914–1918. New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 0-88365-300-1.
  • Silverstone, Paul H. (1984). Directory of the World's Capital Ships. New York: Hippocrene Books. ISBN 0-88254-979-0.
  • Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945 . Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-893-X . (for info on Sagami and Suwo)
  • Lengerer, Hans (September 2008). Ahlberg, Lars (ed.). "Sagami (ex-Peresvet) and Suwō (ex-Pobeda)". Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Paper V): 41–44. (subscription required)(contact the editor at lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se for subscription information)
  • McLaughlin, Stephen (1999). "From Riurik to Riurik: Russia's Armoured Cruisers". In Preston, Antony (ed.). Warship 1999–2000. London: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 44–79. ISBN 0-85177-724-4.
  • McLaughlin, Stephen (September 2008). Ahlberg, Lars (ed.). "Peresvet and Pobéda". Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Paper V): 45–49. (subscription required)

В. Я. Крестьянинов, С. В. Молодцов. Броненосцы типа «Пересвет» («Морская коллекция» № 1 за 1998 г.)

Edited by Admiral_Aruon
flipped title around
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for discussion. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with the idea of adding pre-dreadnoughts to War Thunder: most of them had either minimal or no anti-aircraft armament at all.  Granted, this is hardly unusual for some of the ships already in the game, but for something this big and this slow it could lead to problems.

 

On the other hand it'd be nice to see ships added that DON'T turn a hemisphere several kilometers in diameter centered on the vessel in question into a no-fly zone with how effective AAA in naval forces is.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

One problem with the idea of adding pre-dreadnoughts to War Thunder: most of them had either minimal or no anti-aircraft armament at all.  Granted, this is hardly unusual for some of the ships already in the game, but for something this big and this slow it could lead to problems.

 

On the other hand it'd be nice to see ships added that DON'T turn a hemisphere several kilometers in diameter centered on the vessel in question into a no-fly zone with how effective AAA in naval forces is.

The problem with Russia in general is that they only have 3-4 modern battleships max (excluding paper ships) and the rest are pre-dreadnoughts such as these before us. So either Gaijin needs to provide us with a aircraft free naval mode or redesign naval in its entirety which won't likely happen.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Private_Wolk said:

The problem with Russia in general is that they only have 3-4 modern battleships max (excluding paper ships) and the rest are pre-dreadnoughts such as these before us. So either Gaijin needs to provide us with a aircraft free naval mode or redesign naval in its entirety which won't likely happen.

 

That is an issue admittedly.  The turmoil caused by the Russian Civil War and the various...inefficiencies of the Stalin regime didn't do the Soviet ship-building industry any favors, preventing them from building new capital ships and forcing them largely to rely on foreign expertise (especially from Italy) to build what they could.  The most modern battleship that the Soviet Navy ever actually fielded was, in fact, the British Revenge-class dreadnought HMS Royal Sovereign (originally completed in 1916), which was loaned to the Soviets for half a decade (1944-1949) and served as the Archangelsk.

 

Ultimately, battleships aren't going to be the strong point of the Soviet naval tree at high tiers.  Guided missile cruisers (i.e. the Kirov-class), on the other hand...

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Private_Wolk said:

The problem with Russia in general is that they only have 3-4 modern battleships max (excluding paper ships) and the rest are pre-dreadnoughts such as these before us.

 

16 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

That is an issue admittedly.  The turmoil caused by the Russian Civil War and the various...inefficiencies of the Stalin regime didn't do the Soviet ship-building industry any favors, preventing them from building new capital ships and forcing them largely to rely on foreign expertise (especially from Italy) to build what they could.  The most modern battleship that the Soviet Navy ever actually fielded was, in fact, the British Revenge-class dreadnought HMS Royal Sovereign (originally completed in 1916), which was loaned to the Soviets for half a decade (1944-1949) and served as the Archangelsk.

 

Ultimately, battleships aren't going to be the strong point of the Soviet naval tree at high tiers.  Guided missile cruisers (i.e. the Kirov-class), on the other hand...

 

oh wow. i didn't even know that. i just looked that up. makes it all the more ironic that Stalin was obsessed with BBs.

 

does make me wonder what kind of consideration gaijin will give to partly-built cancelled classes like the Sovetsky Soyuz BB and fully stillborn classes like the Montana BBs or the Dutch Design 1047 that were never laid down.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

 

oh wow. i didn't even know that. i just looked that up. makes it all the more ironic that Stalin was obsessed with BBs.

 

does make me wonder what kind of consideration gaijin will give to partly-built cancelled classes like the Sovetsky Soyuz BB and fully stillborn classes like the Montana BBs or the Dutch Design 1047 that were never laid down.

The solution shouldn't be to add ships that weren't built. What needs to be done is instead of completely seperating ships of different types by BR instead make different types of ships get more or less score for doing different tasks. If your battleship doesn't get much or any score for dunking on torpedo boats and has a far enough spawn then it won't be a problem. Similarly some ships could get increased score by escorting the bigger ships to encourage that sort of behavior. Torpedo boats could get increased score for destroying larger ships, gunboats (including the tiny Japanese ones) could hunt torpedo boats and destroy shore/river targets as well as escort landing craft. Subs could even have a role if gaijin tried to balance ships and make the game more interesting. Plus then it leaves room for bigger ships to be older in the earlier tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, devilskid4 said:

The solution shouldn't be to add ships that weren't built. What needs to be done is instead of completely seperating ships of different types by BR instead make different types of ships get more or less score for doing different tasks. If your battleship doesn't get much or any score for dunking on torpedo boats and has a far enough spawn then it won't be a problem. Similarly some ships could get increased score by escorting the bigger ships to encourage that sort of behavior. Torpedo boats could get increased score for destroying larger ships, gunboats (including the tiny Japanese ones) could hunt torpedo boats and destroy shore/river targets as well as escort landing craft. Subs could even have a role if gaijin tried to balance ships and make the game more interesting. Plus then it leaves room for bigger ships to be older in the earlier tiers.

 

That and honestly I don't think trying for perfect parity is the right way to go.  Each tree should have its own playstyle defined by its strengths and weaknesses.  The Soviets can make up for their lack of modern battleships in other ways (like the aforementioned guided missile cruisers).

 

But back on the subject of this ship...well...pre-dreadnoughts and other ships of that time are probably a case-by-case basis, since not all of them really have a whole lot going for them.  For one, most of them lack any sort of AA armament (though the ones that managed to serve into WWI did often get fitted with some sort of AA armament), and they're also really slow (your typical pre-dreadnought had a top speed of maybe 18 knots on a good day, and it couldn't sustain that speed for too long without the reciprocating engines they used literally shaking themselves to pieces).  Granted, so are some of the boats we have in-game already, but they're riverine vessels that aren't expected to go very far, not ocean-going warships.

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

That and honestly I don't think trying for perfect parity is the right way to go.  Each tree should have its own playstyle defined by its strengths and weaknesses.  The Soviets can make up for their lack of modern battleships in other ways (like the aforementioned guided missile cruisers).

 

But back on the subject of this ship...well...pre-dreadnoughts and other ships of that time are probably a case-by-case basis, since not all of them really have a whole lot going for them.  For one, most of them lack any sort of AA armament (though the ones that managed to serve into WWI did often get fitted with some sort of AA armament), and they're also really slow (your typical pre-dreadnought had a top speed of maybe 18 knots on a good day, and it couldn't sustain that speed for too long without the reciprocating engines they used literally shaking themselves to pieces).  Granted, so are some of the boats we have in-game already, but they're riverine vessels that aren't expected to go very far, not ocean-going warships.

Good points overall. I still would like to see these types of ships in game if only because I think they are infinitely more interesting than most post ww2 vessels but I also understand if they would be nearly useless in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, devilskid4 said:

Good points overall. I still would like to see these types of ships in game if only because I think they are infinitely more interesting than most post ww2 vessels but I also understand if they would be nearly useless in game.

 

Not useless as a whole, it'd be on a case-by-case basis.  This particular class of pre-dreadnought leans towards the "sitting duck" end of the spectrum, largely due to the lack of any sort of anti-aircraft armament.  The small-caliber guns on this ship class are anti-torpedo boat weapons.

 

Alternative Pre-Dreadnoughts that might be better-suited to War Thunder would by the Petropavlosk-class, the Evstafi-class, and easily the most famous of the Russian Pre-Dreadnoughts: the Potemkin, as all of them did receive AA armament from refits.

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/04/2020 at 17:39, Z3r0_ said:

and they're also really slow (your typical pre-dreadnought had a top speed of maybe 18 knots on a good day, and it couldn't sustain that speed for too long without the reciprocating engines they used literally shaking themselves to pieces).  Granted, so are some of the boats we have in-game already, but they're riverine vessels that aren't expected to go very far, not ocean-going warships.

 

yeah when it comes to speed of capital ships, IMO i think this is really more of a nothingburger of an issue.

 

at such high tiers, gaijin is either going to have to reduce ranges of spawn so that the perpetual domination objective is still meaningful (also beneficial and historically accurate for older ships), or ranges that make anything other than de facto Team Deathmatch meaningless.

top speeds from 28-40 km/h are only going to mean so much when you're either charging forwards or broadsiding, and the cap point is a circle 15km away from spawn in the no man's land of open waters.

 

2 hours ago, Z3r0_ said:

Alternative Pre-Dreadnoughts that might be better-suited to War Thunder would by the Petropavlosk-class, the Evstafi-class, and easily the most famous of the Russian Pre-Dreadnoughts: the Potemkin, as all of them did receive AA armament from refits.

 

yeah i'm working on the Borodino-class PDBBs and i'm particularly going to single out the last of the class, the Slava for this reason.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

yeah when it comes to speed of capital ships, IMO i think this is really more of a nothingburger of an issue.

 

at such high tiers, gaijin is either going to have to reduce ranges of spawn so that the perpetual domination objective is still meaningful (also beneficial and historically accurate for older ships), or ranges that make anything other than de facto Team Deathmatch meaningless.

top speeds from 28-40 km/h are only going to mean so much when you're either charging forwards or broadsiding, and the cap point is a circle 15km away from spawn in the no man's land of open waters.

 

 

yeah i'm working on the Borodino-class PDBBs and i'm particularly going to single out the last of the class, the Slava for this reason.

 

Agreed.  Pre-Dreadnoughts would have to be tiered pretty low to make up for their slow top speeds.  The main problem with the lack of speed isn't so much the inability to pursue objectives as much as it is the vulnerability to torpedo attack (or a particularly cheeky subchaser pulling in front of you and dropping depth charges right under your keel).

 

I actually just finished making a thread for the Potemkin (in its c.1917 configuration as the Borets za Svobodu) myself.  Just waiting on it to be approved.

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

Agreed.  Pre-Dreadnoughts would have to be tiered pretty low to make up for their slow top speeds.  The main problem with the lack of speed isn't so much the inability to pursue objectives as much as it is the vulnerability to torpedo attack (or a particularly cheeky subchaser pulling in front of you and dropping depth charges right under your keel).

 

I actually just finished making a thread for the Potemkin (in its c.1917 configuration as the Borets za Svobodu) myself.  Just waiting on it to be approved.

I was going to cover the Soviet battleship Novorossiysk at a later date. If you want to cover the Arkhangelsk in a suggestion I would recommend it. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

I was going to cover the Soviet battleship Novorossiysk at a later date. If you want to cover the Arkhangelsk in a suggestion I would recommend it. 

 

Not sure about Archangelsk, assuming you mean the HMS Royal Sovereign when it was on-loan to the Soviets.  Still not sure what Gaijin's stance on having foreign ships in a given tech tree is at the moment.

That said, it WOULD be the best battleship that the Soviets could have access to (that was actually operational - a few Sovetsky Soyuz hulls were laid down, but none were finished), so I'll look into it for sure.

Edited by Z3r0_
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

Not sure about Archangelsk, assuming you mean the HMS Royal Sovereign when it was on-loan to the Soviets.  Still not sure what Gaijin's stance on having foreign ships in a given tech tree is at the moment.

That said, it WOULD be the best battleship that the Soviets could have access to (that was actually operational - a few Sovetsky Soyuz hulls were laid down, but none were finished), so I'll look into it for sure.

They could have the Sevastopol class battleships which of two were present during the Second World War in modernized configurations. The Soviets really don't have a whole lot to offer in terms of capital ships.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Private_Wolk said:

They could have the Sevastopol class battleships which of two were present during the Second World War in modernized configurations. The Soviets really don't have a whole lot to offer in terms of capital ships.

 

Which is why, as I said before, battleships won't be their strong points at top tier. Guided missile destroyers and cruisers will be their bread and butter at top tier.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Z3r0_ said:

 

Which is why, as I said before, battleships won't be their strong points at top tier. Guided missile destroyers and cruisers will be their bread and butter at top tier.

But will Gaijin ever implement anti-ship missiles of any sort? They would be game breaking without any effective counter measures available for WW2 era warships. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

But will Gaijin ever implement anti-ship missiles of any sort? They would be game breaking without any effective counter measures available for WW2 era warships. 

 

Unfortunately yes, but let's get back on topic about the ship the thread is about before the mods get annoyed.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope USSR doesn't become an absolete naval force, their light CLs are good but DDs right now are lacking, and any other nation seems like they have more options, and not just in battleships but all kinds (I could be wrong though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ColdMatches said:

I just hope USSR doesn't become an absolete naval force, their light CLs are good but DDs right now are lacking, and any other nation seems like they have more options, and not just in battleships but all kinds (I could be wrong though).

I think if they change how rewards work to make smaller vessels viable that would really help the Soviets. They have plenty of destroyers and decent cruisers as well as subs which could all fill roles if gaijin goes down a route of mixing the different ships at all brs and rewarding the different types for doing things they are good at or designed to do. As it currently is in game we have either capture the zone or shoot the enemy until you lose or win which either mean big ships or missiles win which leaves the Soviets as the losers unless missiles get added and then no one will play battleships as they will be pointless unless they club cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 7 months later...

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...