The idea of mssive bulkheads in the bow is originated from Italian, not the USSR creative one. Although much thinner in thickness and shorter in distance, you could see same structure on RN Roma ingame(and although not as good as soviet one, this structure atleast could stop short fuze AP)
For the draft and weight, thanks to Russian Empire, who has too much dream of great navy considering their economy, USSR has enough size of harbor and dockyard on Baltic and Black Sea to bear them. Meanwhile, their condition for survivability is much harsher than those of Yamato. Project 23 class battleship must survive attack of German 15’’ from any angle at 15 km, considering battle situations of both seas.
Even with the help of Italian, British and French who help designing the ship, actually goal was not met, as Project 23 class’ main belt seems unable to stop German 15’’ without angling at 15 km. This actually cause the ultimate cancellation of Project 23 class development in 1943(don’t confuse with its construction cancellation in 1941), and eventually leds to Project 24. And as survivability condition arise from German 15’’ to US 16’’ which ship has to withstand at 15 km, when designing of Project 24 almost ended in 1950, ship ended 88,100 ton even with six 16’’ gun. And that time, Stalin was definitely opposer of battleship(contrary to usual belief, he actually doesn’t like heavy, money consuming weapon, such as heavy tank, destroyer leader and battleship), and Soviet Navy’s goal went from battleship to Project 82 cruiser.
Definitely not. Project 23 was considered by Navy, not Stalin himself. Stalin is not a Hitler type who interfere with every weapon development.
Especially number was not what he want up, as he prefer economic way than heavy thing in weapons if he has chance of interfre with it.
Project 23 is not entirely indigenous design with soviet engineers. It’s basic hull design comes from Italy(although original Italian design is not accepted as Italians put magazine around waterline, which is outdated type and Soviet navy hates it), transmission layout comes from Germany, Main gun designed with help of France, and other armament with Bofors 25 mm oriented or help with British. Fire control system is mixture of Italian and German doctrine. Nothing is completely new, but on the basis of what existing navies did and have. Thanks to 1930s money shortcoming of most nations, USSR was quite easy to gain technologies with enough paying.
Not so uncommon in European theatre. Gun barrel doesn’t need to withstand multiple engagement if port is near and it is easy to reorganize. France, Germany, Italy also designed their guns on those principle.
Thanks for the added information. I know the USSR was heavily reliant on the experience of their partners in getting to this stage of development, but I learned a few things there.
My point stands though, that it was something that Stalin really wanted done to the point that they didn’t cancel the project until after he died. The actual use case of Soyuz was dubious for a nation mostly focused on land combat and defense for its three massive, separate coastlines. There’s value in a deterrent, as seen in the case of the Littorio / Vittorio Veneto class, but I think that would be its main purpose. It could of course go toe to toe with the Tirpitz, but I wouldn’t want to bet on that horse because so many things can go wrong in naval combat. The chances of these beasts even committing to a fight with each other appears slim.
As for the barrel wear, I’m referring to the design emphasis on muzzle velocity and lack of chromium plating. After wearing in the barrels with the first few salvos, the accuracy should gradually decrease, which might eventually put it into a situation where it’s unable to do its job because it’s sitting in port where it can be bombed.
I think my main point is that it would have many more problems that might weaken it in War Thunder had it actually been completed. Therefore, it’s not the unsinkable design it appears to be. Assuming they solved the belt issue, I think the reload would be different, for one. The only reload numbers we have on it are from static trials with single mount coastal defense weapons. As you know, this is nowhere near as complicated as reloading a triple turret at sea.
Not actually. Last discussion of Project 24 was in 1950, and no more discussion of battleship ever happened till death of Stalin. Stalin also presents negative about battleship in late 1940s, but Kuznestov persuaded him as battleships are needed for convoy of aircraft carrier.
Acutally, mostly two, Baltic and Black Seas. Pacific was secondary consideration for them, and North Sea just gets strateic value at WW2. And those two seas, although narrow, are critical for USSR’s survival. Calling Russia as nation mostly focused on land combat is a British attempt to deter their foucs on navy, which didn’t went well. Nation situated in Russia always put the best effort they can on defending those two seas, and USSR was not an exception.
Actually 23 seconds reload is for ‘designed’ triple turret. Single mount on Leningrad is not dedicated coastal defense mount. It’s just mount for gun testing which got armor cover in wartime. It’s reload number is not inside minute as there are no automated ammunition supply system.
I think most of them have appeared on actual vessels, but they were usually just merchant vessels or other auxiliaries. There are a few of the camos in game that did appear on the ships that actually used them though.
The distinctive feature of the Hiei was that it was equipped with a tower mast as a prototype of the Yamato class. Introducing the Kirishima in its final form and making the Hiei a premium ship in its old, pre-renovation form…to be honest, I think they should have switched the Hiei and Kirishima.
After checking GitHub’s Datamine, it appears “fatalExplosion”: false has been added to Yamato’s secondary guns/high-angle guns/anti-aircraft machine guns ammo storage.
This may resolve the issue where any explosion other than the main gun’s charge would inevitably cause a sinking explosion.
Found this as “40mm anti-aircraft guns mounted on an Akizuki-class destroyer”. The main gun turret shape and placement are similar to the Akizuki-class, same for torpedo crane
I’ve never heard of this before, but apparently the Akizuki-class was once equipped with four 40mm anti-aircraft machine guns. Bofors or Vickers? Anyway, don’t you think a premium Akizuki-class would be a good choice for a newcomer? The Suzutsuki, in particular, has a square-shaped bridge, additional triple 25mm machine guns on both sides, and the Kikusui mark on the funnel. (The armor also has a picture to identify enemy aircraft.) The Yukikaze is quite powerful, but like most IJN destroyers, it primarily serves as a torpedo carrier. I think a premium ship capable of artillery combat would be welcome.
The Hiei battlecruiser was added to the dev. But the model is not finished yet + the Hiei has incorrect main battery turrets modeled… And the funny thing is that the Hiei has more armor than the two three Kongos…
